Bromford Housing Group Limited (202125691)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125691

Bromford Housing Association Limited

28 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s concern that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on his health and caused injury.
3. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord’s insurer, as a result of damage to the resident’s personal property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s concern that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the resident’s health and caused injury.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concern that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the resident’s health and caused injury is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
When the resident made a stage 1 complaint in September 2021, he said that he had “severe mobility and medical issues” and he found the damp conditions in his property were making his health conditions worse. He also said that his bathroom floor had been damaged by the damp, and the floor covering was lifting, causing a trip hazard. He said that he “fell over” the loose flooring, which caused him an injury.
The Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, and does not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability. Claims of personal injury including damage to health must ultimately be decided by a court of law. The court will consider medical evidence, allegations of negligence, and make legally binding findings. This is the most effective and appropriate way in which to achieve a remedy in the face of the serious allegations in this aspect of the resident’s complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s complaint that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the resident’s health and caused injury.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The landlord might also consider providing the resident with information on how he could make a personal injury claim through its insurer. While this Service has not sought to reach a determination on liability or injury, consideration has been given to any adverse effect, including distress and inconvenience, which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The amount of compensation offered by the landlord’s insurer, as a result of damage to the resident’s personal property

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord’s insurer, as a result of damage to the resident’s personal property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
Paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme”.
On 11 December 2022, the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement offered by the landlord’s insurer for damage to his personal property, as a result of damp and mould. The resident said that he was offered £5,000, and this did not cover the amount needed to replace all of the damaged items.
The landlord referred the resident’s claim for damage to possessions to its insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about the outcome of the insurer’s consideration of the claim because the insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident is able to appeal the insurance settlement if he does not believe it covers the damage caused, as a result of the damp and mould. If the resident was dissatisfied with any appeal decision, he could consider getting independent legal advice about making a claim in the courts. Any dissatisfaction the resident has about the landlord’s response to the claim could also be raised as a complaint with the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom ground floor property. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having limited mobility, suffering from mental health problems, and having borderline personality disorder.
When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint in September 2021, he said that he had been experiencing damp and mould in his property for a number of years. The resident made the following reports between 2016 and 2020:
1. The resident first reported a concern about “ongoing mould” in June 2016, when he said mould was growing on his possessions, and he sent the landlord photos;
2. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2016 and said the photos appeared to show “condensation below the rug” had allowed mould to grow. It advised cleaning the carpet and to “allow it to dry fully” before placing anything on it;
3. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property in September 2016. The surveyor reported the outside earth was higher than the level of the damp proof course and there were high levels of moisture in the property. The landlord completed works to “rake back” the earth to expose the damp proof course, installed a vented ‘air brick’ and fitted a ‘trickle vent’ in the bathroom window;
4. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2016 and said that the works it had done were “making no difference” to the damp in his property. He said that he was following the advice of the surveyor and using the extractor fans, along with heating rooms, but it was not improving the situation;
5. The landlord completed further repairs in November 2016 which were ‘repointing’ the brickwork on the porch. The repairs operative noted “mould on the external wall” of the bedroom, and that the resident was drying clothes in the bathroom with the window closed;
6. The resident reported concerns about damp and mould again in December 2016, and that the mould had spread to the bathroom;
7. The resident reported a concern about damage from damp and mould and “water running down” the walls in his bathroom in 2017;
8. The landlord raised a job to assess and repair “damp damage” on the bathroom wall in July 2017;
9. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2017 and said the damp and mould treatments it did “last year” had not worked, and asked if it could “fit better extractor fans”;
10. In October 2017 the landlord installed a new extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom and “cut out” the concrete around the perimeter of the property to below the damp proof course and filled it with “20mm stone”;
11. The landlord arranged for an internal surveyor to attend the property in November 2017, as the resident had reported a “lot of water” collecting in the dehumidifier it had given him. It is not clear from the repair log when the surveyor attended;
12. In January 2018 the landlord attempted to install a gas main at the resident’s property, as part of a plan to upgrade his heating system. The notes show that the resident cancelled the appointment, due to concerns about disruption.
13. The resident reported a blockage in the drainage in his bathroom in March 2018, an operative attended and could not find a blockage. The operative reported that a drain company needed to be called. It is not clear from the repair log when the drain was unblocked;
14. The landlord contacted the resident in September 2018 to ask if he was still having issues with damp and mould, he confirmed that he was. The landlord raised a joint visit with a surveyor and the resident’s housing officer. It is not clear from the repair log when the joint visit took place;
15. The resident called the landlord in November 2018 to report concerns about damp and mould, as it was now present elsewhere in his property. He advised that water was “running down” the wall;
16. The landlord raised a job to inspect the damp and mould in January 2019, and the repair log shows that this took place in February 2019 “as requested”. The findings of the visit are not recorded;
17. The resident reported concerns about damp and mould and damage in his bathroom in April 2019. The repair log shows the landlord attempted to contact the resident several times in April 2019 to discuss his concerns, but was unable to get through;
18. The landlord visited the resident in May 2019 and discussed the “proposed works” of installing cavity wall insulation and a new heating system. The notes state that the resident refused the works because of concerns about not being able to redecorate following works, due to his poor health. The said that it could not “assist with the damp issues” if it was unable to complete the proposed works;
19. The landlord repaired a broken extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom in June 2019;
20. In September 2019 the landlord contacted the resident to ask if fixing the extractor fan had resolved the damp issues, he said it had not. It advised the resident that he needed adequate heating to help resolve the issue;
21. The landlord visited the resident in November 2019 and he said that he still did not want the heating upgrade, as he could not move furniture. The landlord advised that it could do this for him, and to let it know when he was “feeling up to it”;
22. The resident reported concerns about damp and mould in his kitchen, bathroom and bedroom in August 2020. The landlord attended in September 2020 and raised works to:
  1. Replace the skirting board in the bathroom;
  2. Fit a new shower screen;
  3. “make good” the plaster in bathroom corner;
  4. Repair the bathroom extractor fan;
  5. Repair the flooring in the kitchen.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2021 and said that there was “water running down the wall” in his bathroom. He contacted the landlord again on 11 January 2021 and said the new flooring it had fitted in his kitchen was lifting up and it was “wet underneath”. The landlord attended on the same day to do a ‘make safe’ repair on the floor.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 22 April 2021 and said that he had received a letter about its plan to renew his heating system, and he wanted to decline the works. The resident stated that he was disabled and could not “cope with the upheaval”, and would be unable to move furniture. The landlord replied there were “ways around” that, but the resident still declined. The operative speaking to the resident asked a colleague to follow up with and encourage him to agree to the works, due to the concern about damp and mould in his property.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property to repair his kitchen floor, but he refused the repair because he had been “told [a] surveyor” would be attending. The landlord completed an inspection on 24 June 2021 and on 15 July 2021 logged a “major referral for damp works”. It is not clear from the repair log what parts of the property were inspected, or what works were proposed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2021 and said a “puddle of water” had come up through the floor. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 August 2021 and said that the issues in his property were getting worse and “80%” of it was covered in mould. He advised that contractors had visited and confirmed there was not a burst pipe anywhere. The resident stated that he had been to see Citizen’s Advice, and would be sending a formal letter of complaint. He wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2021 stating that he wanted to make a complaint, and said:
1. It should be aware from its records that he had been having issues with damp and mould in his property for 7 years;
2. The situation had worsened in the last 12 months and the landlord had made frequent visits to inspect the problem;
3. There was white mould all over his furnishings and bedding, and black mould on many of the walls;
4. His floors were very wet to walk on and the floor tiles in his kitchen and bathroom were lifting causing a trip hazard;
5. A surveyor for the landlord had recently told him damp levels were at 80% throughout the property;
6. Operatives had told him materials had been ordered and repairs were due to start, but he was yet to be given a date for the repairs;
7. It had supplied him with a dehumidifier, but it was not up to the task and very expensive to run;
8. A number of his possessions had been damaged, as a result of the damp and mould.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 September 2021 and said that it had opened a complaint investigation, and asked him to send photos of his damaged possessions to assist it with its investigation. The resident responded on the same day and said:
1. He was not just complaining about his damaged possessions, but about how long it was taking to start repair works relating to damp and mould. He said it had been on going for over 12 months;
2. He had been trying to speak to the surveyor who visited his property for 2 months, as he wanted more information about the works needed at his property;
3. He was “constantly sitting and sleeping in damp conditions”;
4. He could not have carpet in his hallway because it got soaked in the winter;
5. It was an ongoing issue since he moved into the property, but was now a lot worse;
6. He had a new bathroom fitted due to his mobility and the plaster was already blowing and the floor was coming up, with paint coming off the walls;
7. The worktop in his kitchen was peeling because of the damp.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2021, and said:
1. The first thing it needed to do was arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and recommend any works needed as quickly as possible;
2. It had attended the property with a surveyor, and the issue was more complex than it first thought;
3. The “floor slab” throughout the property was damp, but it had been unable to establish the cause as there were no signs of leaks;
4. It would be appointing an “external surveying company” to investigate the cause of the damp, as it accepted the issue had “gone on too long”
5. It would continue to monitor the situation closely to get it resolved;
6. The resident could ask for his complaint to be considered at stage 2, if he remained unhappy with its response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 September 2021 and said the “black mould” was getting worse and water was dripping down his walls. He advised there were visible cracks, and his sofa was “smothered” in mould. The landlord responded on the same day and said that it was “chasing” the contractor, and asked the resident to send additional photos as it was looking into a compensation offer.
The external surveyor completed an inspection on 23 September 2021 and shared its report with the landlord on 12 October 2021, its report said:
1. The inspection revealed very high humidity levels in most rooms;
2. There was mould growth on several surfaces and this extended on to the resident’s clothes and furniture in areas;
3. The floor slab was “unusually damp to touch”;
4. There were no signs of escaping water or water ingress, but there was “an underlying issue somewhere”, so further investigation was needed;
5. It recommended a complete underground drainage survey, and a “core drilling exercise” to establish the makeup of the floor slab and ‘substrate’ below;
6. The shrubs surrounding the property blocked daylight and acted as a wind barrier, and were preventing natural airflow;
7. Dependant on the further investigations, it identified the likely works needed as:
  1. Create a pebble soak away in the garden;
  2. Install a ‘liquid damp proof membrane’ in the floor slab;
  3. Install a ‘powered ventilation system’ to improve airflow.
On 15 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service to advise that the situation in his property was getting worse, and reported plaster falling off the walls. The resident also reported “bricks crumbling and a fist sized whole in the cavity wall over the lintel”. The landlord’s notes show that it attempted to raise an “emergency” repair to make safe the lintel and hole, but the resident declined the repair appointment.
On 15 October 2021, the local authority contacted the landlord to say that the resident had raised a concern with it about damp and mould in his property. The landlord responded on the same day, and explained that a survey had recently been done and another survey was going to take place to investigate further. The local authority responded on 18 October 2021 and said that it was “unsatisfactory” that the resident had waited “nearly 2 months just for the surveying process”. The local authority asked the survey to be “fast tracked” so the remedial works could start sooner. The local authority sent a follow up email to the landlord, having spoken to the resident and said:
1. The resident described his clothes and furnishings were covered in mould, and he was “embarrassed” to have any visitors;
2. The resident could not use email and had not received a response to his complaint in writing;
3. He was due to have surgery and needed to ensure his living conditions enabled him to recover;
4. The resident had said the conditions he was living in were “that bad that having a shower and being able to use a dry towel would be a luxury”, and he felt “neglected” by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the local authority on 18 October 2021, and said that it had escalated the matter to its senior management in order to progress it faster.
The external surveyor attended the resident’s property on 19 and 26 October 2021, to complete further investigations into the cause of the damp and mould. It completed a CCTV drain survey, and a ‘bore hole slab inspection’. It supplied the landlord with a report, dated 4 November 2021, which said:
1. The floor slab “fell short of what is considered industry standard” and there was no damp proof membrane/barrier;
2. There were numerous displaced joints in the drain, and a fence post had broken the drain in one area, and it recommended a “structural reline” of the drain;
3. It was evident that the property was suffering from penetrative damp and at times of a “high water table” the floor would be wet to touch. The water in the floor would likely evaporate exacerbating the humidity levels in the property;
4. There was a “significant amount of remediation work required to bring the property to an acceptable habitable level”. The resident would need to be decanted in order for the works to take place;
5. In addition to the works recommended in its previous report, it suggested:
  1. The removal and replacement of the concrete floor slab to all rooms to bring it up to current building regulations;
  2. Replace all door architraves and skirting boards throughout the property;
  3. “hack off” and replace all plaster and plasterboard up to 1.2 metres;
  4. Assisted mechanical drying was recommended for a period during each construction phase.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 November 2021 and offered to temporarily move him to a hotel, with his dogs, until a decant property was ready. The resident advised that he did not want to move to a hotel, as he was concerned he would have nowhere to let his dogs out. On 22 November 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and said that it had identified a decant property, and planned to facilitate the move on 8 December 2021. It reiterated its offer of the hotel. The resident responded on 24 November 2021 and said that he could not move on 8 December 2021, as he was due to have an operation. The resident subsequently moved in to the decant property on 15 December 2021.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the property and shared its findings internally on 3 February 2022. It found that the property had no cavity wall insulation and a stop tap had a “slow constant leak”. It said the leak had likely been ongoing for years causing increased humidity which, along with the poor ventilation and “inadequate” insulation, resulted in the poor conditions. It decided the following works were needed:
1. Insulate the walls and reseal the broken drains;
2. Fit a new boiler and heating system;
3. Replace the kitchen and flooring throughout the property, including fitting like for like carpets;
4. Replaster where needed;
5. Wash all surfaces with fungicidal cleaner;
6. Redecorate throughout;
7. Fit new ventilation fans throughout the property;
The resident contacted this Service on 11 April 2022 and said he wanted the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2, because he was unhappy with the quality of the redecoration works. This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2022, and asked it to investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The landlord’s repair log indicates that the resident moved back into his property on 15 April 2022.
The landlord contacted this Service on 27 May 2022, and said it had arranged for the outstanding works to be completed, and had agreed a compensation settlement with the resident. The landlord said that it had been “unable to communicate” with the resident for a period of time. It said it had hoped the compensation offered would have enabled it to come to an “amicable” resolution with the resident. But, it had since been told that the resident wanted to progress his complaint to stage 2. The amount of compensation offered to the resident, was not shared with this Service.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 June 2022, and said that the landlord was “pressuring” him to accept the compensation and had not yet issued him with a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 June 2022 to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint, and said it would issue a response by 29 July 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 26 August 2022, and said:
1. It had agreed rectification works with the resident following a home visit, which were:
  1. Remove the low level shower screen;
  2. Relocate the drain;
  3. Relocate the handrail;
  4. Install a new shower tray to reduce water escaping from the shower and contributing to damp in the property;
  5. A full replacement of the floor covering;
2. It also planned to complete works previously identified which it had been unable to complete, which were:
  1. Fully redecorate the woodwork throughout the property;
  2. “Patch” decorate the new plaster;
  3. Relay “lifted floor tiles following the washing machine flood caused by removals”;
3. It understood the resident had agreed to the proposed works, and it would complete the works as soon as the resident could provide access for 4 consecutive days;
4. It was ready to pay the resident £5,000 compensation that had been agreed by its insurance team, but was awaiting a signature on the appropriate form from the resident;
5. The resident had asked to be moved to a different property, and it confirmed it was “happy to consider this” and would support him through the process;
6. Its investigation found the matter had been “ongoing for quite some time”, and it apologised that it took “so long” to resolve;
7. It offered £1,000 in compensation, in addition to the £5,000 offered by its insurance team, in recognition of the length of time it took to “get to this point”;
8. It advised how the resident to take his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its response.

Events after the landlord’s complaints procedure

On 18 to 21 November 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property to undertake changes to the wet room which were:
1. Remove the shower screen;
2. Fit the grab rail;
3. Lay the new floor.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord attended to repaint the woodwork in the resident’s property. Its records show that the an operative was refused access on 29 November 2022, so was unable to fix the floor around the resident’s washing machine.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 December 2022 and said that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in his property. The resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint and said that the damp had returned, and the landlord had been informed.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 20 January 2023, and notes from the visit state:
1. The property was very cold and mould had formed on the inside of the front door;
2. It was concerned that the resident was not using the heating, as there were plug in heaters in the property and the boiler was turned off;
3. The extractor fan in the bathroom was also turned off;
4. It had booked another visit for 26 January 2023 to see if the heating was on.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s repair policy has 4 main categories of responsive repair, which are:
1. Immediate: for repairs such as gas leaks and flooding, which it will attend within 2 hours;
2. Emergency, same day: repairs that pose a “risk or significant impact to the safety” of a resident;
3. Emergency, next day: repairs that pose a reduced risk or inconvenience if left unattended for 2 days;
4. Appointed repair: where there is “no risk of harm or significant inconvenience” which it will attend “as required by the [resident] and availability of appropriate resources”;
The landlord’s ‘decant procedure’ states that when it has decided it needs to decant a resident to do repairs it will explain:
1. The reasons why a decant is necessary, and what works are involved;
2. The timescales for proposed works, and how long the resident will be decanted for;
3. Any involvement the resident will have in decisions about the works.
The decant procedure also states that it will assess the “inconvenience caused” with the resident and agree a ‘disturbance payment’.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can make “discretionary awards” of compensation when it identifies failures in the service it has delivered, which include:
1. Failure to provide a service to a resident;
2. Where rooms/amenities are not available for use because of repairs needed;
3. Service failure “including sorry awards”.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 days, but it will usually happen within 24 hours, and it will issue a response within 10 working days. The procedure states that stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days “from the date of the request to escalate”.

Assessment and findings

Damp and Mould

When the resident raised a concern about damp and mould in his property in June 2016, he supplied photos of mould growing on his floor. The landlord provided the resident with some advice based on consideration of the photos alone. It is concerning that the landlord did not visit the property to inspect the matter, but gave a diagnosis of what it thought was causing the issue (condensation) without further investigation.
The advice it gave to “allow [the floor] to dry fully” before placing anything on it, is evidence the landlord had a lack of curiosity as to why the resident’s flooring was wet in the first place. Its response was cursory, and that it did not visit to inspect the matter was a failing. This initial failing may have impacted on the delays in the landlord’s overall response. This approach set the tone for the resident’s interactions with the landlord about damp and mould in his property. It is evident that interactions such as this gave the resident the impression that the landlord was not taking his reports of damp and mould seriously.
The landlord did attend the resident’s property to investigate the cause of damp and mould in September 2016, and identified works needed to improve the matter. However, this was 3 months after the resident first reported the issue. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair log, how this repair was categorised. Given the description of the repair and the categorisations set out in the landlord’s policy, it was reasonable not to treat the repair as an emergency. However a 3 month delay to attend and investigate damp and mould was unreasonable. The response time is evidence the landlord failed to consider the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident. This is particularly concerning given it was aware of his vulnerabilities and health conditions.
It is noted that between 2016 and 2020 there were gaps in the resident reporting concerns about damp and mould. In 2018 there was approximately an 8 month gap between reports of damp and mould. When the resident reported concerns about damp and mould in August 2020, this was the first time he had reported the issue in approximately 9 months. The gaps in the resident reporting concerns about damp can reasonably be expected to have contributed to some of the delay in the landlord responding to the issue.
The evidence available shows that the landlord had sought to upgrade the resident’s heating for some time. It had concluded that the lack of adequate heating was contributing to the damp and mould issues. The delays in progressing this were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, as the repair log shows that the resident cancelled planned appointments or withdrew permission at various times. The resident cited a concern about the impact of such work, and the fact he was unable to move furniture or redecorate afterwards. It is therefore understandable that he felt unable to agree to the works commencing. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did little to manage the resident’s expectations about the importance of it completing the work, or what assistance it could provide. The landlord evidently placed a high level of importance on a new heating system improving the living conditions at the property. It is therefore reasonable to expect it to have been more proactive in engaging with the resident about the matter in an attempt to alleviate his concerns.
The resident raised his concerns about the heating system upgrade with the landlord in May 2019, when he said that he was not in a position to complete any redecoration after the works. The landlord’s notes from the conversation show that it said it “cannot assist with the damp issues” if it was unable to complete the proposed works. This Service acknowledges that the landlord did experience access issues, which may have impacted on its ability to resolve the issue. However, the notes indicate that the landlord’s approach lacked empathy in how it dealt with the resident’s refusal. The notes show that the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about what it could do to assist him, and minimise disruption for the resident. The resident evidently found the prospect of disruptive works at his property concerning, and the landlord’s approach did little to consider how it could reduce his anxiety.
The repair log indicates that, in November 2019, the landlord spoke with the resident about how it could assist him following works to upgrade his heating system. The landlord said that it could help with moving furniture for works to take place and asked the resident to let it know “when he was feeling up to it”. This was reasonable in the circumstances. But, its approach was cursory and lacked detail about what it could do to assist him. When it did eventually complete the major works at the resident’s property it completed redecoration works. Had the landlord provided the resident with a scope of works, some of the resident’s concerns could have been alleviated sooner.
The evidence available indicates that when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould, the landlord often sought to visit the property promptly to investigate the matter. There is also evidence that the resident sometimes cancelled appointments, or was uncontactable, often due to ongoing medical procedures and ill health. While it is acknowledged that the resident may not have been able to keep appointments owing to issues outside of his control, the evidence that is available shows that this did impact the landlord’s ability to investigate the matter. For example, in November 2018 the resident raised a further concern about the damp and mould spreading around his flat. The landlord attempted to contact the resident at the time, and was unable to speak to him. It then attempted to contact him again in December 2018, and again was unable to get through. It then contacted the resident in January 2019 to “see if the damp issues [were] resolved”, but was unable to get through and arranged for an operative to complete a home visit. This was a reasonable approach and is evidence of the landlord proactively engaging with the resident about the matter.
When the operative completed the home visit in February 2019, the notes from the visit simply stated “visited [the resident] re: damp issues, as requested”. The lack of detail here is concerning, given the resident had raised a concern that the damp issue was getting worse and spreading around his flat. The landlord’s records do not detail anything about the condition of the resident’s property at the time. There is also no evidence that the landlord took any action following the visit, or gave the resident any advice. This does not evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously at this time.
The lack of detail on the repair log about this visit was a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. It would be appropriate for the landlord to have recorded what was found on inspection, and whether the operative considered that a further inspection/survey was necessary, or if any remedial works were needed. Keeping a proper audit trail could have allowed the landlord to consider the situation as a whole, identify if the situation was worsening and may have allowed it to consider whether investigations, or a survey of a specific nature, were required.
The landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the damp and mould numerous times between 2016, when the matter was first raised, and 2021 when the resident made a formal complaint. It is noted that it did identify and compete works in an attempt to resolve the matter. It is evident that the lack of adequate heating, and the resident’s refusal of the upgraded heating contributed to the matter. But it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have conducted further investigations into other possible contributing factors to the damp given the ongoing reports and serious nature of those reports.
The evidence indicates that, by late 2020, damp was prevalent throughout the resident’s property. The landlord did attend to fix the resident’s extractor fan and repair the floor tiles damaged by the damp. Following this repair, the resident reported that the new floor was lifting up in January 2021, and said that it was damp underneath. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted further investigations at this point into damp on the floor slab. This was not the first instance of the resident reporting his flooring was damp, and flooring it had recently installed was already damaged. It is not clear why the landlord did not investigate further at this time. However, that it did not was a failing in its handling of the matter.
In July 2021, the landlord identified that “major[…] damp works” were needed in the resident’s property, and the landlord arranged to complete a joint visit with a surveyor, and a plumber to investigate possible causes of the damp. This was a reasonable approach to take, however it occurred 5 years after the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in his property. Its earlier attempts to address the matter had been unsuccessful, and as such, it would have been reasonable for an inspection such as this to have taken place sooner. The landlord should consider the expected approach outlined in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould, which states that landlords should adopt a “zero tolerance” approach and identify opportunities for extending the scope of their diagnosis within buildings. Such an approach may have assisted the landlord in identifying the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property earlier, as such relevant orders have been made below.
From the evidence available it is unclear what works the landlord identified in July 2021, as the records provided do not indicate the outcome of its joint visit with a plumber. This was a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping, which can reasonably be expected to have impacted on its overall handling of the issue. The lack of recorded evidence from visits and inspections is evident by the fact that after the resident made a complaint, the landlord instructed a further survey. It is reasonable to conclude that, despite conducting a joint visit in July 2021, it did not have an adequate record to rely on and needed to inspect the property again. This is a further example of how the landlord’s poor record keeping impacted on its overall response to the substantive issue.
After the resident made a formal complaint, the landlord ordered a “full damp survey” with an external surveyor, which took place on 23 September 2021. The survey was conducted by a damp specialist who recommended extensive works, following further investigations, to improve the condition of the resident’s property. It is concerning that the landlord only arranged for a damp specialist to inspect the resident’s property after he made a formal complaint. Particularly so given that the resident was vulnerable, and had repeatedly reported the issue was getting worse, despite the works completed. By the time the landlord arranged the specialist survey, the resident was evidently very distressed about his living conditions and had reported to the local authority that he felt “neglected” by the landlord.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that after the resident raised his concerns as a formal complaint the landlord began to deal with the matter with more urgency. It was appropriate for the landlord to expedite the matter, given that the situation was worsening. However, its actions appear to have been prompted by the complaint itself, rather than as a result of how long the resident had been reporting the issue, or the impact that it was having on him.
Once the landlord had identified the extent and scope of the works needed, it offered the resident a decant so it could complete the works. In line with its decant procedure the landlord outlined what works it planned to do and the timeframe in which it hoped to complete the work. It also explained how long the resident would likely need to live elsewhere. This was an appropriate approach in the circumstances, and in line with its decant procedure.
Around this time, the landlord became aware that the resident was unable to use his bathroom at all. As the decant accommodation was not yet ready, the landlord offered the resident hotel accommodation. The resident declined, due to a concern about his dogs, and the landlord sought to manage his expectations around this by explaining he was able to take his dogs to the hotel. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s decant was appropriate, and there is evidence it gave full consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities and needs. Internal communications, in October 2021, show the landlord considered the need for the decant accommodation to have a garden for the resident’s dogs, and a need to for it to be in a familiar location for the resident, due to his vulnerability. This is evidence that the landlord understood the importance of handling the decant with sensitivity, and gave due consideration to the resident’s individual circumstances.
This Service has seen no evidence that, in line with its decant procedure, the landlord offered or even discussed a ‘disturbance payment’ with the resident. It is unclear why. However, this was a failure on the part of the landlord to correctly apply its decant procedure. The result of which was that the resident was not offered the appropriate redress, set out in the landlord’s procedure, for the inconvenience of having to temporarily move out of his home.
Following the works completed at the resident’s property, it is evident that the bathroom was not fitted to the specification needed, due to the resident’s accessibility needs. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, issued in June 2022, identified works it needed to complete to enable the resident to use his bathroom effectively. While the landlord’s response was appropriate, the resident suffered further inconvenience of not being able to use his bathroom easily when he moved back in to the property. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility needs, it would therefore have been reasonable for it to engage with him about these before he moved back in to the property. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord did this.
The record of the landlord’s visit to the resident’s property in January 2023, indicate that it was concerned about how the resident was using the property. It was concerned that the resident’s use of the property was contributing to damp and mould, as the boiler and extractor fans were both switched off. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there were any contributory factors to the damp and mould issues. However, the records indicate that the landlord simply turned the extractor fan on, and booked a return visit to see if the resident was using the heating. In the circumstances, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence what it planned to do to help manage the resident’s use of the property. A supportive approach in helping the resident to understand the importance of heating and ventilation may help in reducing damp and mould issues in the property. As such, relevant orders have been made below.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered the resident £1,000 in compensation in recognition of the “length of time” it took to “get to this point”. The complaint response did not identify any learning it had done about its handling of the matter, nor did it identify any failings that contributed to the length of time it had taken to get to that point. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation as to how it had reached the figure, and what factors it had taken into account. This may have also helped the resident to understand how the figure had been reached and to consider whether he thought it was fair in the circumstances.
The repair log shows that the matter of damp and mould in the resident’s property was outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The repair log indicates that the resident had issues with water ingress in his bathroom as recently as March 2023. Given the matter was outstanding at the time of the offer of compensation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have framed this as an interim offer. It could have then advised that it would consider further compensation once both parties were satisfied that the issues had been resolved. In considering whether the landlord’s offer was proportionate, the Ombudsman has given regard to the length of time that the repair(s) were outstanding, the inconvenience caused to the resident, as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent paid throughout. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £335.10 in rent, per month, at the time of raising his complaint. When the resident first raised his concern about damp and mould on his carpet in 2016, he was paying £340.69 per month in rent. The landlord was put on notice about issues with damp and mould in the resident’s property in 2016, and the matter got progressively worse. It is evident that by August 2021, the damp and mould issues had progressed to a level that there were puddles of water in the resident’s property. He also reported, at this time, that 80% of his flat was covered in mould.
The resident had some benefit of living in his property during that time, and therefore he was liable to pay rent. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 5% of the rent covering the period from June 2016 to August 2021, when he evidently had some loss of amenity due to damp and mould. However, from August 2021, until the resident was decanted in December 2021, he could not properly use his bathroom, and the entire floor slab was wet. The resident therefore had a much more significant loss of amenity during this period. Taking this into account the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 50% of the rent, covering this period. The total amount of compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £1,893.89, and has been calculated as follows:
1. 5% of the total amount of rent payable (£21,122.78) between June 2016 to August 2021 is £1,056.14;
2. 50% of the total amount of rent payable (£1,675.50) between August 2021 and December 2021 is £837.75.

The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs, including its poor record keeping, in the associated orders below.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 1 September 2021, which was the same day the complaint was made. This was in line with the timeframes set out within its complaints procedure and earlier than stipulated in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
However, the landlord’s complaint acknowledgment simply stated that the complaint had been opened and it would begin its investigation. This was not compliant with the Code, which states “within the complaint acknowledgment, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking.” Its failure to set out its understanding of the complaint was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations about the complaint and the outcomes it could achieve during the complaint. The landlord may wish to ensure that it sets out its understanding of the complaint in future, to ensure it is making full use of its complaints procedure, as a means to resolving a dispute.
During its stage 1 complaint investigation, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, and the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. The officer investigating the complaint sent an internal email on 1 September 2021 asking the repair team if it was aware of “ongoing damp issues”. The response received on 2 September 2021 was cursory and stated there were “quite a few emails” going around about it and it had a “job to replace some kitchen floor tiles” and some adaptations. The response failed to acknowledge or address the fact that the resident had consistently been reporting damp and mould since 2016. The cursory response was a failure engage in a meaningful complaint investigation that sought to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the matter. This is evidence that the landlord displayed a lack of empathy for the circumstances the resident was in, and how its response had contributed to that.
Further internal communications for the landlord on 3 September 2021 are particularly concerning, and evidence of a further failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The officer dealing with the complaint asked the repairs team why the resident felt surveys it had done in June 2021 had not been actioned. The response received stated that it “can’t do anything about the history” of the matter and suggested that if someone had “the time” to put together all of the information and reports then it would “have a chance of seeing why[it had] failed”. This was poor complaint handling practice and evidence that the landlord did not intend to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the matter, or felt that it was unable to do so. It would have been appropriate, particularly considering the vulnerability and living conditions the resident was reporting, for the landlord to have fully investigated the events leading to this complaint. It could also have addressed any resourcing issues to enable it to do this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2021, 10 working days after it was made. This was compliant with the timeframes set out in its procedure and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was brief in how it responded to the resident’s concerns of how it had handled his reports of damp and mould up to that point. The landlord accepted that the issue had gone on for “too long”, which, by implication, was an admitted failing. However it did not address in any detail why the matter had been allowed to go on for too long, and what learning it had taken from that fact. It is evident that the landlord’s failure, outlined above, to look back at the case and identify learning, affected the landlord’s ability to properly respond to the concerns in the resident’s complaint. It also impacted its ability to understand how the resident had been affected, as a result of its response to his reports. This was a further failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The impact on the resident was the inconvenience of not having his complaint appropriately addressed by the landlord.
Given the landlord accepted that the matter had gone on for “too long”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to apologise for this and offer some form of redress for its admitted failings. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did neither, which was a failure to try to put things right for the resident. Given the landlord’s compensation procedure allows it to make offers of compensation when it identifies a failure in service, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation as part of its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did seek to manage the resident’s expectations about what it planned to do to resolve the issues. It clearly set out its plan about how it was going to approach the matter, which was appropriate in the circumstances. Particularly considering that the resident had raised a concern that he had not been given dates, or confirmation about proposed works.
The landlord’s acknowledgment of the resident’s stage 2 complaint took 51 working days, and required the intervention of this Service. The result was an inconvenience to the resident of a protracted complaints process and delayed complaint response. The resident also experienced time and trouble involving this Service in June 2022, as he had not received a response to his complaint.
The landlord said that it hoped the compensation it had offered, through its insurance team, would have enabled it to come to an “amicable” resolution with the resident. It said it had since been told the resident wanted it to open a stage 2 complaint. Later comments from the resident indicate that he felt “pressured” into accepting the landlord’s offer of compensation. The Code states that “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct the complaints process, or result in an unreasonable delay.”
This Service has not seen evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident about its offer of compensation from this time. However, this Service asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 12 April 2022 and it did not open its investigation until 29 June 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its desire to reach an “amicable” resolution with the resident contributed to the delay in it opening and responding to his stage 2 complaint.
The insurance compensation related to damage to belongings. The landlord has a policy for compensation which sets out that awards can be made for failings or where rooms/amenities are not available for use because of outstanding repairs. The landlord appears to have disregarded this, and has suggested that the insurance compensation was somehow holistic. This was inappropriate and failed to have regard for the detriment the resident had experienced.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it said it would send its response by 20 July 2022. The landlord did not issue its response by this date, which was a failing. The resident suffered a disappointment of not receiving a response from the landlord within the timeframes that it said it would respond.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord sought to explain the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, which was not compliant with the Code. The Code states stage 2 complaints must be responded to within 20 working days and “if an extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to agree an extension with the resident, as the Code requires. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord. It failed to have due regard for the Code and this again led to a prolonged complaints process for the resident. The landlord did not try to manage the resident’s expectations and say when it would respond to his complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 26 August 2022, 93 working days after it received the resident’s escalation request. This was 73 working days later than the timeframe set out in its procedure and the Code, and was a further failing in its complaint handling. The result was further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the lengthy delay. Given the 73 working day delay in issuing a response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer the resident some form of redress to acknowledge the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it would “consider whether there was any learning” it could take from its handling of the matter. The landlord did accept there were failings, apologised, and offered compensation, which was appropriate. However, the landlord’s complaint response did not detail the failings it had identified, or any learning. The offer of compensation was made for the “time” it had taken to get to that stage, but, as outlined above, it did not set out its findings in any detail. This is evidence that the landlord did not apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution of learning from outcomes in its handling of the stage 2 complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme that damp and mould in the property had an adverse effect on the resident’s health and caused injury concerns matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the amount of compensation offered by the landlord’s insurer, as a result of damage to the resident’s personal property concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were delays and missed opportunities to properly investigate and identify solutions to damp and mould issues in the resident’s property. It did identify and complete some work to try and resolve the issue, but it is evident from the repair log that its attempts were unsuccessful, as the resident kept reporting the same issue. Its approach appears to have been cursory, with little attempt to thoroughly investigate the cause of the damp. There was a significant delay in commissioning a specialist to investigate, which led to substantial works not being identified for 5 years, after the resident first reported the issue.
The landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Its investigation at stage 1 failed to seek to learn, or identify any failings. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was delayed, and when issued, it failed to identify any learning, despite identifying failings.
The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the substantive issue was poor. There were instances of it not adequately recording its findings, or the outcomes of visits. The landlord attended and proposed “major damp works” in July 2021, but what it planned to do was not recorded. Its poor record keeping can reasonably be linked to the delays in its overall handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £4,493.89 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,893.89 in recognition of the loss of amenity, as a result of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repair;
  2. £2,000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repair. The landlord’s offer of £1000 made during the complaints procedure should be deducted from this sum if already paid ;
  3. £600 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Arrange to meet with the resident and provide tailored guidance on how to effectively heat and ventilate his property. The landlord should give particular consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities when providing this guidance.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the damp and mould issue including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should give particular consideration to:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs;
  2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident;
  3. How its poor record keeping affected its ability to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks;
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in understanding the impact on a resident when responding to a complaint. It should also focus on the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and how such investigations can be resourced. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.