Clarion Housing Association Limited (202123583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123583

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 4 June 2018. The property is a two bedroom flat on the first floor. The property is on an estate that is part of an ongoing regeneration project.
There are no known vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy which states that responsive repairs fall into two categories:
1. Emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours
2. Non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 days.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy further explains that:
1. Where a hazard or risk associated with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is highlighted, it will address works required within its responsive repair service
2. The landlord’s technical staff are trained in identifying risks and hazards under the scheme, and will complete risk assessments within their roles
3. Support in completing risk assessments and finding solutions in complex cases is available via the landlord’s health and safety team.
The landlord has a complaint policy which states that:
1. It operates a two stage process. An initial complaint will be resolved within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied then the matter can be progressed to a “peer review” for a response within a further 20 working days
2. If the landlord is unable to resolve the complaint at any stage it will keep the resident informed and provide a timescale for how long a resolution will take
3. It will put things right within reasonable timescales and manage expectations. It will fully and accurately record details and actions of the complaint at all stages
4. Where it is advised that legal action has begun, it will continue to manage through the complaint process until confirmation of legal action has been received.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it may offer compensation for loss of room use in cases of severe damp. In these cases, compensation may be offered as a proportion of the rent. It has a compensation matrix to aid the landlord’s staff where this circumstance applies.
The resident has advised that she has been reporting damp and mould to the landlord since 2019. She reports that she remembers contacting the landlord by phone and being given advice as to how to treat it herself. The first record of damp recorded on the landlord’s system is on 11 November 2020, when the resident reported she that the situation had worsened and she was concerned about the health of her children. She sent photos which showed:
1. Significant black mould in the corner of her rooms from the floor to the ceiling and large patches behind furniture
2. Mould around the windowsills
3. Damaged items inside her fitted wardrobe which were covered with mould, including bags and shoes.
On 26 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that:
1. She was sleeping in the living room with her daughter to get away from the mould in the bedroom. Her 17 year old was still sleeping in a bedroom which was “full of mould”.
2. Her daughter had a skin reaction to the mould and sent photos of this. She had tried cleaning the mould with bleach without success.
3. She had seen extensive damp behind her wardrobe which backs onto an external wall and believed there to be rising damp.
4. When she spoke to the landlord on 20 November 2020, she had been told that nobody could attend until the 1 December 2020, and that the repair had been given a 28 day priority.
On 1 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that she had been told by the landlord that damp in her property was due to her lifestyle but she felt this was not the case. She had concerns about the health of her family.
Records show that the resident chased the landlord on at least three further occasions after 1 December 2020. She said her family had been left to sleep on mattresses on the floor of the smallest room in the house.
On 4 December 2020 the resident completed a complaint form via the landlord’s website. She said she had severe damp and no one was returning her calls or messages. She wanted a response by the end of the day. The landlord replied and advised that it would pass her “query” to the repair team.
On 9 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord via social media. She said the lack of response she was getting from the landlord was “confusing and unacceptable”. On 10 December 2020 the resident contacted her local MP and said she was “at her wits end”. She said all she wanted was her damp to be rectified so she could live comfortably. The MP agreed to contact the landlord.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that if she moved her wardrobe, it would remedy the damp. The resident advised the wardrobe was “built in” and she was unable to move it by herself.
On 31 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s MP and advised it would provide the resident a full written response to her concerns.
On the 18 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one complaint response. It advised that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. It had noted that a technical officer had inspected her property on 22 December 2020 and had since agreed to remove the built in wardrobe to allow for damp proofing works to be completed. Follow up repairs would be carried out to install:
  1. Thermal boards to the bedroom walls
  2. 13 trickle vents
  3. Two humidistat extractor fans
3. It concluded that there was a “serious mould issue” that was being addressed, and therefore there was no service failure.
4. In recognition of the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint it would offer her £50 in compensation.
On 19 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that:
1. £50 compensation was an insult and showed a lack of empathy to her family who had to sleep in the same room because of issues that had not been resolved for 14 months.
2. The landlord had only provided short-term fixes and had not made good the property. It was cold, uncomfortable and smelt.
3. She had been feeling helpless and “left to fight the world just to have a comfortable place for my family to live”. She had often contemplated suicide but was trying to stay strong for her children. She had developed severe anxiety and depression.
4. She had fluid on her lungs which she believed was linked to damp exposure, which her GP had made a referral for further investigation. Her children had been bullied for the smell of damp on their clothes and her daughter had developed a rash.
5. Damage had been caused to her belongings and as a single parent, she could not afford to replace items. She was having to take time off work for appointments that were either cancelled or had little progress for a resolution. She provided dates of the appointments she was referring to.
6. She had made over 56 calls to the landlord and had to contact her MP to get support for any kind of a complaint response. Whenever she spoke to the landlord, she was informed she would be on the list for a call back, which never happened.
7. She had been made to feel that the damp was due to a “lifestyle choice” which she attributed to being allegedly discriminated against because of her race, class and the fact she was on benefits. She was made to “feel small” and was allegedly told that if she was cooking certain foods, she should close the doors, which she felt was racial bias.
8. She had calculated what she felt was fairly owed by the landlord due to lack of ownership and broken promises, to the value of £4,000.
9. She wanted a full explanation of the landlord’s complaint policy, and the matter escalated.
On 20 January 2021 the landlord informed the resident that her request to escalate her complaint had been received but due to high demand, there would be a delay in responding further.
On 25 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that two engineers came to her property to take measurements for the trickle vents. She had not been informed of the appointment, and wanted it documented for the purpose of her complaint. She said that she was under examination at the hospital for chest pains caused by damp exposure, and had concerns the situation was affecting her health.
On 4 February 2021 the resident sent the landlord videos of the extent of damp in her bedroom. They showed a large amount of black mould behind the dismantled wardrobe. A surveyor called the resident and advised that they would attend her flat within 30 minutes. A further two hours passed and no one arrived. She contacted the landlord and was informed someone would send her an email update.
The resident contacted her local MP and she felt like “tearing her hair out”. She was seriously depressed and feeling suicidal. They responded and advised that they had contacted the landlord’s chief executive for an urgent resolution.
On 9 February 2021 the resident was decanted. The landlord has advised this Service that it “could not see a clear reason” from the initial assessment for the decant.
On 16 February 2021 the resident advised her MP that she had been decanted to another property but was still awaiting a list of works and timescales for repairs. She had not been given practical advice about accessing her property and was concerned about her belongings being left with further exposure to mould.
On 17 February 2021 the resident’s local MP informed her that it had been in contact with the landlord, and it had advised that a damp report was being reviewed by its surveying team, and that a schedule of works would follow “as soon as possible”.
On 22 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said that:
1. She had been decanted from her property due to the damp, but it appeared that the landlord’s different departments were not speaking to each other.
2. The situation had caused her stress and anxiety, and she was unclear as to when the work would be completed.
3. She had expected her complaint to have been escalated to a peer review stage but was unsure what was happening.
On 25 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. Its records indicated that no report of damp was made to its repairs team last year. If it had, then an inspection could have been raised to establish the extent of the problem. It was sorry that she had only received general information about how to manage condensation in the property.
3. It had arranged a compensation payment of £200 to reflect the duration of the issue.
4. It was satisfied that the correct actions were taken in the stage one response. An inspection was arranged, remedial works were identified and dates for jobs were supplied. The purpose of the works was to limit the occurrence of damp in the property.
5. Brick pointing had been inspected and would be addressed, but it was not seen as a contributory factor to the damp, and further adjustments may be required to lifestyle.
6. It was sorry for the lack of clarity about what might happen at each repairs visit and for any lack of notice given by its contractors. It wanted to offer £50 to reflect the quality of information given.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord’s technical inspections officer noted that:
1. Redecoration of the two bedrooms had been agreed, and it was making arrangements to top up the resident’s electric via an app.
2. Whilst at the property further repairs were identified and these had been sent to the contractors for action. These included:
  1. Stripping the existing walls, cleaning the mould and thermal boarding.
  2. Apply cement and sand render with waterproofing agent to the external walls.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s local MP and advised that:
1. There had been a delay in starting remedial works as it needed to arrange for a specialist damp contractor.
2. Works began on 24 February 2021 and were concluded on 3 March 2021. A post inspection took place on 5 March 2021 and no further works were identified.
3. It was sorry for the inconvenience caused to the resident and acknowledged that she had not been kept updated on progress.
4. It would ensure that “lessons are learnt” from the complaint and it would provide more accurate updates to customers in the future.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. It advised that:
1. It had reviewed the previous complaint responses the landlord had provided.
2. It had contacted its technical services manager about the schedule of works and was advised that all works were completed apart from the installation of trickle vents, which were due to be fitted on 17 March 2021 and alongside “minor snagging works”.
3. The landlord’s technical inspection officer confirmed that she had been speaking to the resident and a full schedule of works was “very clearly communicated” at the end of her initial inspection and several times after.
4. It saw no evidence that a schedule of works had not been communicated, and there had been no service failure, but it wanted to offer her £250 in compensation. This was because it could see that it committed to completing works by 4 February 2021, but they were not done until 17 March 2021. There was also a delay in responding to her complaint.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised she could move back into her property the same day, as works had been completed. However, records show that the resident’s decant ended on 18 March 2021.
On 8 April 2021 the landlord noted that it had completed a job to wash down the surfaces and redecorate the resident’s property.
Nine months later, on 10 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that within a year of the repair works, the damp had returned. She felt that it had made good the property without fixing the inherent problem and she was concerned at the impact on her health.
In response to the resident’s concerns, on 13 January 2022 the landlord’s repair records note “damp in bedroom, urgent”.
On 19 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and advised she wanted to make a formal complaint. She reiterated that the mould had returned and was concerned by the lack of empathy being shown by the landlord. She was unhappy her family were decanted for weeks in 2021 and the problem had returned, despite assurances it had been fixed. She provided photographs that showed patches of damp on the walls.
The resident’s local MP also contacted the landlord. They said that the photographs were “shocking” and that whilst it acknowledged that the landlord would be regenerating the area, people should not be expected to live in “appalling” conditions. They said they had seen an increase in complaints for a number of residents across the whole estate and asked that the landlord treat the matter as a formal complaint.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord received a letter of claim from the resident as a litigant in person. Within her correspondence she said that:
1. She believed that the landlord was in breach of its obligations relating to housing conditions. It had witnessed the problem of damp but seemed only to make good the property, without carrying out works to eradicate the problem.
2. As far back as 2019, she had been told by the landlord the damp was due to a “lifestyle choice”, and that she should close her doors when she was cooking and open the windows.
3. Despite following the landlord’s advice, the situation got worse, and her household was catching colds more often. She summarised the landlord’s actions following her report of mould from November 2020, and the difficulties she had with the landlord moving the fitted wardrobe. She also had issues with the landlord formally accepting her complaint.
4. Eventually, after she went back to the landlord a number of times, the landlord moved her wardrobe and arranged for a surveyor to visit on 22 December 2020. Damp was identified and because of the disruption the works were likely to cause, it was agreed that she should be decanted.
5. The decant did not take place until 9 February 2021, approximately 49 days after the surveyor visit. The works were not carried out within the expected timeframe, and the decant was extended.
6. On return to the property, it still felt cold, and it was costing a lot to heat, but it was not until January 2022 that she contacted the landlord again. The property was “freezing”, and the mould was returning to all the same areas as before.
7. She had to take time off work to allow for further appointments, and the landlord’s contractors and surveyors were able to witness there were ongoing issues. She felt that they only made good the property and did not carry out the substantive works.
8. The defects in the property were causing depression, anxiety, and loss of sleep. Her children were suffering from colds and itching which she attributed to the damp. She had to take a significant amount of time off work, had begun suffering from migraines and at times felt suicidal.
9. She asked the landlord to provide her with a plan of action to eradicate the issue and not just offer a “quick fix” solution. She wanted a full schedule of intended works, and anticipated completion dates as well as an explanation of what works would be done differently to its previous attempts.
On 27 January 2022 the resident contacted her local MP and said that:
1. She had woken up feeling unwell with a headache, coughing and a runny nose. She felt that her health was being affected by the damp and mould present in the room she had to sleep in.
2. A surveyor attended on 21 January 2021 to do an assessment, but she was yet to be updated on the outcome of the report. She noted that during the visit, the surveyor could see that the damp had returned to the same places.
3. A contractor attended the property to do a mould wash, and was unaware of the previous issues, so she had to explain the situation again.
4. A “quick fix” will not end the issues and she was at her wits end. She woke up most mornings crying because mould was the first thing that she could see, and was feeling depressed.
5. She could not afford to heat the property and was having to spend £40 on top ups a week, causing her financial strain and it was affecting her work life.
6. She did not know where to turn and had approached her GP for advice. She didn’t trust the landlord to eradicate the damp and mould for good.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord completed a pre-inspection report of the property, which noted areas “may have been” tested for the presence of damp using a protimeter. The results were not noted in the report. A schedule of works was made which noted:
1. Mould on the walls that had been thermos boarded previously.
2. Signs of condensation on the windows in bedroom 1, but no signs of mould around them.
3. Mould found on the window in the front room.
4. Signs of condensation in bedroom 2.
5. The resident stated the property is cold and expensive to heat, so a heat loss survey was required.
6. No issues with the wallpaper or paint were noted but a request had been made for a specialist to review all the points the resident had concerns with.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint the resident raised on 19 January 2022. It advised that it would investigate her concerns and provide a full response within ten days.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that as her concerns with damp and mould were subject to legal disrepair, it would not investigate her complaint.
On 10 March 2022, specialist damp contractors attended the property to conduct a survey. The results noted that:
1. There was mould on the living room external wall and on the ceiling in bedroom 1.
2. The fans in the kitchen and bathroom were underpowered and in need of an upgrade. A fan with humidity controls was recommended.
3. The brickwork displayed broken and cracked bricks that needed repointing.
4. Mould and paint treatment was required in the necessary areas.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord raised a job for a chemical damp proof course (DPC) survey to take place. It was marked as “cancelled” on 26 April 2022.
The landlord’s solicitor sent the landlord an email on 22 April 2022. It advised that, having reviewed the evidence:
1. It considered the landlord to be on notice for the damp from November 2020. It could see the resident had tried to make several complaints and had to have support from her local MP.
2. The landlord would have been aware that the resident had said her family was suffering from illness. It had asked the resident for further details to review if she could pursue a personal injury claim.
3. Repair works had been delayed, particularly around February 2021.
4. The mould growth at the property seen from photographs was substantial, and whilst the specialist report did not specifically say the cause of mould, it did confirm that cracks in the brickwork were attributing to the issue.
5. Where the mould had not been caused by lifestyle, if the resident was to pursue the matter to court, it considered that she could recover damages.
6. It suggested that the landlord consider making a financial offer and complete outstanding repair work within 90 days.
A letter was sent to the resident “without prejudice” by the landlord’s solicitor on 21 July 2022, setting out the landlord’s settlement offer. It said that the schedule of works referenced in the surveyors visit of 1 February 2022 would be completed within 60 days, subject to access being given. The sum of £4,000 was offered but would be offset against any arrears.
The resident advised that she was not prepared to accept the money being offset against her rent arrears. There had been an issue with the landlord’s IT system due to a cyber-attack and therefore she queried the amount that was stated as being owed in rent.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it had acknowledged her request to progress her complaint to stage two of its process. Owing to a cyber-security incident, it could not recover details of her concerns and asked she provide it with details of what she remained unhappy with. Dependent upon the availability of information on its systems after it received this, further response times may be impacted.
The resident responded the same day. She advised that she still had damp in her property that was unresolved. As an outcome she was seeking:
1. Permanent alternative accommodation that was not overcrowded.
2. Acknowledgement of the failures made over the past three years.
3. Compensation in full that did not take into account her arrears, which were already being paid by agreement.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that:
1. It had noted she had ongoing concerns with damp and mould in her property, but as a legal disrepair case was being brought, it could not investigate her concerns as a formal complaint.
2. It was unable to offer any specific information and would forward her emails onto its legal team.
On 5 September the landlord’s solicitor explained to the resident that the offer was subject to deduction of rent arrears, and that the landlord was legally entitled to the rent. If she chose to issue proceedings, then it would bring a counter-claim for rent arrears and seek costs for doing so.
On 26 October 2022, the solicitor wrote to the resident and explained that it had received an up-to-date rent statement, and there were arrears of £3,071.77 which would need to be offset against any settlement figure.
The same day, the resident responded and advised that she was willing to accept the offer subject to the arrears being offset, and the remaining balance issued. The solicitor advised the landlord that the claim had been settled and the landlord made arrangements to pay the resident. On 15 November 2022 the resident signed a disrepair completion certificate which stated that “this is to confirm satisfactory completion of disrepair works”.
In recent contact with this Service, the resident has advised that her property continues to smell of damp and that the landlord has only “made good” patch repairs because the properties are due to be part of a regeneration project in 2024. She said the landlord is aware that there are still issues with damp but she “no longer has the energy” to fight against them. The landlord’s most recent repair records do not show new reports of damp after November 2022.

Assessment and findings

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

This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced damp and mould in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her family. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident advised that she first reported damp and mould to the landlord in 2019 and was given initial advice, however the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it has record of contact until November 2020. The landlord noted that she had tried to follow its advice but the damp and mould had become extreme, affecting both bedrooms. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the resident had expressed concerns about damp in her property prior to November 2020. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlord’s should be aware of their obligations under HHSR and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that where a hazard associated with HHSRS is highlighted, it will address the works required within its responsive repair service. The timescale given for this is up to 28 days for routine repairs. In her early contact with the landlord, she was given an initial appointment within this timeframe, which was appropriate and in line with policy. However, the landlord should have given consideration to attending to the property within a quicker timeframe where she had explained that the damp was so extensive that she and her children had to move into the living room to get away from it.
Landlords should ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, have the ability to identify and report early signs of damp and mould. Initial advice was given to the resident that the damp was due to “lifestyle”, which she strongly disagreed with. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould actively discourages inference or blame on residents for causing damp within their home. In this case, the resident made it clear to the landlord that she had made reasonable efforts to control the damp and mould herself. Where her efforts did not resolve the problem, the impact of the landlord’s stance that it was as a result of her lifestyle, left her in her words “feeling small”. There was a lack of empathy shown to the resident and her family, and she struggled to have her concerns taken seriously.
Landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The resident directly informed the landlord that she felt that the landlord was allegedly discriminating against her. She explicitly alleged racial bias in the wording a member of staff had purportedly used to inform her that she should close the doors when cooking. These were serious allegations, however the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it has responded to these specific concerns.
Behind each report of damp and mould, there is a person or people who may be suffering, and that should be the focal point. The landlord was unsympathetic to the resident’s circumstances when it informed her that it would attend to do a mould wash, if she were to remove the built in wardrobe herself. This was an unreasonable suggestion, which did not take into account that it was a difficult task for her to do alone and she had to chase the landlord on several occasions for assistance.
It was not until a technical officer attended the property on 22 December 2020 that the wardrobe was removed by the landlord and the issue was deemed to be so extensive that she required a decant from the property. No evidence was seen that the landlord’s technical officer conducted a risk assessment in accordance with its repair and maintenance policy for risks identified under the HHSRS. This was inappropriate, particularly as by the landlord’s own admission there was a “serious mould issue” at this point.
Despite being aware that her family were sleeping in the living room, and where it considered the issue to be serious, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about the next steps after the technical officer visit. Records demonstrate that the resident had to chase the landlord several times for an update. The impact of the landlord’s poor communication was significant, and when she enlisted the support of her local MP she reported that she was feeling suicidal.
Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Despite referring to the mould issue as “serious” it did not make arrangements to decant the resident until approximately 38 working days later. No explanation was seen for this unreasonable delay and the resident stated she was left unclear as to what the schedule of works and timescales were. Conversely, the landlord said the schedule of works were “very clearly communicated” in its correspondence dated 18 March 2021. An assessment of the landlord’s record keeping has been made separately as part of this report.
The landlord’s website has a page called “decants – a guide to temporary accommodation” for residents. Within this, it states that the landlord will help with the cost of moving as well as consider costs for any hardship as a discretionary disturbance payment in accordance with its decant policy. The resident has informed this Service that she did not receive any support from the landlord and she was left to move alone, incurring costs. With no records of the terms on which the decant was agreed, it is fair to assume that this was the case. This was inappropriate and showed a lack of understanding of the impact the move had on the resident and her family.
The resident was able to return to the property in March 2021, but no evidence was seen that the landlord maintained contact with her to be confident that its remedial works had resolved the issue. Approximately ten months later, she reported to the landlord she was experiencing the same issues as the previous year. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged to attend the property after she raised concerns again on 10 January 2022. This prompted her to contact her local MP and the Ombudsman, and write a pre-action letter of claim to the landlord.
The resident made it clear in her correspondence dated 25 January 2022 the impact the unresolved damp and mould had on her. She explained the worry of the condition of her property was causing her a lack of sleep, she was experiencing depression and anxiety, and was feeling suicidal. These concerns were serious but the landlord failed to identify that she was vulnerable. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded to these concerns which was unreasonable and showed a lack of empathy to her situation.
Landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage, and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution. It was not until 1 February 2022 following this contact, that the landlord sent a surveyor to the property and instructed a damp specialist. The specialist identified that there were issues with the fabric of the building relating to the brickwork. It should not have taken a letter of pre-action for the landlord to instruct a specialist to review the situation.
It is understood that the resident’s property has been marked for regeneration in approximately 2024. The MP correspondence dated 19 January 2022 highlighted that a number of residents on the same estate had been complaining to the landlord about similar issues. Where properties are marked for regeneration, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould explains that landlords should be proactive, and ensure that residents do not receive a poorer standard of service or lower living conditions. It is particularly important that landlords regularly engage and communicate with residents living in these homes.
The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it did this, and the resident had to chase it a considerable amount of times to understand what actions it was taking. The resident has also reported to this Service that the uncertainty around the regeneration is confusing and is causing her further distress. A recommendation has been made that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her personal situation in this regard.
Whilst the landlord has made a settlement offer reflective of the failures in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it is not commensurate with the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. She received a distinct lack of communication from the landlord and it could not demonstrate that it had adopted a person-centred approach. She was not compensated for having to decant the property and experienced further inconvenience chasing the landlord for a response after the pre-action letter was sent and before she confirmed the works were completed in November 2022.
It is noted that the resident has reported to this Service that her home continues to smell of damp and that floor tiles are lifting. The landlord’s repair records do not show that the resident has reported these recent concerns. She has advised this is because she feels as though she does not “have the energy” to endure a repeat of her previous experiences with the landlord. It is important to note that the landlord’s obligations under HHSRS do not cease where a property is marked for regeneration, so an order has been made that the landlord makes contact to discuss her current concerns.
Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It’s responses lacked empathy and caused additional distress to the resident. Whilst it has in some way compensated the resident for its failures, its offer did not go far enough to put matters right. It has not learnt from outcomes where it has failed to continue to communicate effectively with the resident after completion of the repair works and about the pending regeneration.
In considering an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman has taken account an original figure suggested by the landlord’s solicitors on dated 22 April 2022. In this correspondence they suggested the resident could recover damages based on an approximate 30% of rent reduction to the value of £6,750 at that time. A rent related reimbursement as part of the settlement was appropriate, however the landlord only paid £4,000 of this. It’s final compensation did not take into account the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, or damage to her personal belongings. It has also not been able to demonstrate it considered a discretionary disturbance payment in accordance with its decant policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes it clear that landlord’s must make it easy for residents to complain. In this case, the resident experienced difficulties in getting her landlord to accept her concerns in November 2020 as a formal complaint. The landlord’s response to the resident on 4 December 2020 informing her that it would pass her “query” onto the repairs team was inappropriate. It failed to recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint, and in doing so it delayed the matter being investigated and caused the resident inconvenience in chasing it for a response.
When the landlord responded at stage one of its process, it apologised for the delay and appropriately compensated for this. However, its response failed to address all that she was dissatisfied with. It did not respond to her concerns about the health of her children, her damaged items or that she had been left to sleep on a mattress on the floor. The response lacked empathy and did not go far enough to reassure the resident that it was treating the matter as a priority, despite identifying that the situation was “serious”.
When the resident responded to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, a stage two letter followed approximately 27 working days later. This delay was outside of the timescales that could be expected within its complaint policy. However, the landlord gave the resident advance notice that there may be a delay and it apologised for this which was reasonable.
The response explained to the resident that the damp had been assessed and remedial works scheduled. Whilst its offer of compensation at this point was reasonable, its response did not provide assurance of what would happen should its interventions not solve the problem, and made inference again that the damp was likely to require changes to “lifestyle” alongside the investigations.
The landlord provided no clarity as to what it thought these changes might be, and its response was contradictory, as despite advising there were ongoing lifestyle issues, it also acknowledged there was an issue with the brickwork in the property. Any remedy proposed by the landlord in its complaint correspondence should set out what will happen by when, and follow it through to conclusion. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have suggested that the “bricks will be addressed” but took no clear steps as to how it would remedy this.
Like the stage one response, the stage two did not acknowledge all of the resident’s concerns fully. She had made some serious allegations that she felt discriminated against. The landlord’s response lacked empathy and no evidence was seen that it offered her further support or signposted her to appropriate agencies where she had advised that the situation was having a negative effect on her wellbeing. The amount of compensation it offered was not reflective of its overall poor communication and failed to put matters right for the resident.
The landlord sent the resident a further “stage one” response, 16 working days after its final stage two response. This was not appropriate and essentially put the resident back to the beginning of its complaint process rather than referring her to this Service. By doing so, the resident experienced frustration and confusion as to what stage her complaint was at, adding to her distress.
When she tried to escalate the matter further, she experienced the same difficulties she had a year earlier, and had to enlist the support of her local MP to get a response from the landlord. This showed that the landlord had not learnt from previous outcomes, and where further communication was not forthcoming, the resident felt she had no option but to write a pre-action letter to the landlord. It is this letter that provoked a more robust response from the landlord, as highlighted in the assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould within this report.
It was not appropriate that the landlord’s complaints team informed the resident that it could not discuss her concerns further because they were subject to a legal disrepair case. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes it clear that in cases where the pre-action protocol has commenced, landlords should continue to use their complaints procedure until legal proceedings have been issued. In this case, the resident had not issued legal proceedings and therefore the landlord had an opportunity to have addressed all of her concerns and maximised its opportunity to have resolved them.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its responses lacked empathy and failed to address all of the resident’s concerns. The compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced in bringing her complaint. When she started the pre-action protocol, the landlord refused to review her complaint further which was inappropriate and contrary to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.

The landlord’s record keeping

It is recognised that the landlord suffered a cyber-attack around 17 June 2022 and access to its systems were limited as a result around this time. This assessment takes this incident into account, with the understanding that all the data was later recovered and is focussed on the detail of information it provided both the resident and this Service for the purpose of this investigation.
Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The resident advised that she had to make a significant number of telephone calls to the landlord to inform it of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. This Service was not provided with comprehensive call notes that could demonstrate what was discussed with the resident, and what advice it gave.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. The visit by the technical officer of 22 December 2020 is of particular concern, as it is this visit that prompted the resident’s decant. No records were seen as to what conversations took place with the resident, and the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it is “not clear” from the surveyor’s assessment what the reason was for the decant. The surveyor has since left the business and it is therefore unable to obtain further detail.
The only correspondence with the resident this Service has seen in relation to the decant was the landlord’s letter date 19 March 2021 which advised the resident she could move back into the property on the same day. Whilst it is accepted that this was a typing error, it is important that the landlord’s records accurately reflect dates and times significant events took place.
If information is not created and stored correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied upon. The surveyor’s pre-action report of the property dated 1 February 2022 stated that the property “may have been” tested for the presence of damp using a protimeter. If it was, no results were added to the document. This limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate it had comprehensively surveyed the property in line with its HHSRS obligations.
Records should tell a full story of what happened, when and why. In this case, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had made “very clear” the plan of action as alluded to within its complaint response dated 18 March 2021. It appeared to have relied on the recollections of the landlord’s technical officer rather than comprehensive records which remain unseen. This was not appropriate and contributed to the resident’s lack of trust in the landlord. She had no faith that her issues were being treated fairly and due to its lack of transparency.
Overall, the gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and effectively communicate these to the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act quickly to the resident’s complaints of damp and mould and she experienced significant difficulty in getting it to acknowledge that there were concerns about the fabric of the building. Where the property is due for regeneration, the landlord was not proactive in seeking resolutions in line with its HHSRS obligations and failed to effectively communicate with the resident. Whilst the landlord offered compensation as a result of the resident’s pre-action letter, it did not go far enough to recognise that its responses lacked empathy and understanding where it put the onus on her to manage the issue through changes to her lifestyle.
The landlord failed to apply the key principles of the Code of “Be fair, Learn from Outcomes, Put matters right”. It failed to address all elements of the resident’s complaint, and its responses lacked empathy to her situation. When she sent the landlord a pre-action letter, it stopped communicating with her which was unreasonable and contrary to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.
There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It was unable to demonstrate that it had kept contemporaneous notes of its interactions with the resident. There was missing detail around the rationale for the resident’s decant and information from surveyors reports which hindered its ability to demonstrate what actions it had taken and why.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A member of the landlord’s senior management team apologises to the resident in person, within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,000 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The amount is in addition to the £4,000 already paid to the resident as part of its settlement. The compensation compromises:
1. £2,750 to reflect the additional rent reduction figure noted in the correspondence dated 22 April 2022.
2. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
3. £250 for the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to attend the property to inspect and identify any further remedial works required to the resident’s recent reports of damp and mould, within four weeks.
The landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of alleged discrimination and bias as expressly noted in her letter of claim dated 19 January 2021, within four weeks.
The landlord to review the circumstances surrounding the resident’s decant and confirm whether a further discretionary disturbance payment is due in line with its decant policy, within four weeks.
The landlord carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within six weeks. The review must include:
1. An explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
2. A review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
3. A review of its procedures relation to damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould.
4. A review of its procedures in relation to record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord to report back on its intentions regarding the recommendations below, within four weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to discuss with the resident what the regeneration plans mean for her and her tenancy.
The landlord to consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the Code and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.