Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307339

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a mite infestation in her property.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
3. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has an assured tenancy with her landlord, which is a housing association.
The landlord has advised this Service that it did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident or her family.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2023 to report an infestation of ‘mould mites’ in her property. In response, the landlord raised an order on 12 January 2023 to wash and clean the property.
The landlord’s records confirm that an operative attended the property on 16 January 2023 and carried out some cleaning of the mould in the kitchen. The operative confirmed seeing the mites on the kitchen worktop and on a laptop computer.
On 18 January 2023, the resident wrote to her MP about the reported infestation of mites. The MP forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord on the same day. The resident stated that the mites had infested the kitchen cupboards, appliances and the living room. She said she had reported the problem to the landlord on 11 January 2023. She stated that the problem had been caused by a damp and mouldy wall.
On19 January 2023, the resident submitted a stage one complaint using the landlord’s online portal. She stated that the property had a mould mite infestation in the kitchen and living room. She stated that despite the landlord being aware of this over a week ago, the problem had not been resolved. She believed she should have been immediately decanted so the property could be fumigated.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 23 January 2023 regarding the reported mites. It was agreed with the resident that a full mould wash would be undertaken to include all the kitchen units. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 24 January 2023 to carry out a full mould wash and this was completed on 27 January 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 25 January 2023 for a pest control contractor to carry out treatment to eradicate the mites.
The landlord’s records show that on 30 January 2023 it delivered a dehumidifier to the property.
In February 2023, the pest control contractor wrote to the resident to confirm that it had carried out ‘sampling’ of the mites and this showed that they were flour or grain mites. The letter stated that the treatment would be in 2 parts with a break of 14 days between sprays. The letter requested the resident not to vacuum or clean treated areas until the day before the second treatment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023 and stated that she had not been contacted by the landlord regarding the outstanding work. She attached photos of the kitchen and stated that the pest control contractor had sprayed pesticide in the kitchen, living room and hallway 2 weeks earlier (on 16 February 2023) and she had been told she could not clean it for 14 days. She informed the landlord that the second spray had been carried out on 2 March 2023 and she had been told not to clean the surfaces for a further 2 weeks. She questioned why she had not been decanted for 4 weeks while the pesticide treatment was underway. She stated that her daughter had been staying elsewhere and the resident had been seeing a doctor due to allergies, which she said had been caused by the pesticide.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2023 to acknowledge her complaint and apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The pest control contractor’s report dated 2 March 2023 confirmed that it had carried out the final pesticide spray on that day. The contractor’s report stated that the resident had been advised not to access the property for 6 hours after the spraying. The report stated that the resident was not living in the property at the time and therefore it had used a “high residual insecticide spray” on all surfaces. The report also stated that the resident had been advised about not vacuuming or mopping until the next treatment.
The landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email following his inspection on 8 March 2023 to confirm that various works were needed. He stated that there was an air vent behind one of the kitchen base units that needed to be blocked up, extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom and thermal boarding needed to be fixed to the kitchen and living room wall.
The landlord raised an order on 8 March 2023 to carry out an inspection and mould wash where required. The landlord’s records stated that the works were completed and a further surveyor inspection had been agreed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 March 2023 to apologise that it was not yet able to respond to her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 17 March 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had raised a job order on 12 January 2023 for mould and mites in the property. An operative attended on 16 January 2023 and reported that the mould reported by the resident had been cleaned. He reported the presence of mites in the property.
2. The landlord concluded that the situation did not justify decanting the resident. It said it would carry out a further mould wash to include the kitchen units and possibly removing the backboard to treat other affected areas. The landlord said it would then arrange for its contractors to shampoo the carpet to the entire downstairs area of the property.
3. The resident had initially declined the appointment for the work as she was worried about the impact on her family. The landlord therefore rearranged the appointment for the next day.
4. The landlord said it considered the matter further on 25 January 2023 and decided that its pest control contractor would conduct an “enviro clean”, carry out a mould wash treatment, shampoo the carpet and spray the property with appropriate pesticide sprays. This work was arranged for 27 January 2023.
5. The pest control contractor attended on 27 January 2023 and advised the landlord that it would need to carry out “further sampling” to confirm the proposed treatment was correct.
6. The contractor attended on 28 January 2023 and shampooed the carpet.
7. The kitchen wall unit had been removed, which exposed a concealed open passive vent behind the unit, which was contributing to the mould growth and was possibly attracting the mites.
8. The landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the property on 30 January 2023 to draw further moisture out of the property. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the dehumidifier would remain in the property until further pest treatments and sampling had been carried out.
9. The landlord said it had confirmed the treatment for the mould and mites had been completed (the final spray for the mites had been on 2 March 2023) and the landlord would carry out a joint visit on 20 March 2023 to identify any further works needed in relation to the mould and damp issues.
10. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint but offered £50 for the delay in replying to the complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 20 March 2023 to confirm the works that were required.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply and stated the following:
1. She had initially advised the landlord that mould mites were coming from behind the kitchen cupboards. The resident said she had already cleaned inside the cupboards.
2. The operative who had attended on 16 January 2023 had not been fully aware of the extent of the problem. The resident said the operative was instructed while on site by his supervisor not to remove the kitchen cupboards but to remove any mould he could see. The resident said that the operative partially removed the visible mould.
3. The resident had received a call from a pest control contractor on 19 January 2023 to say it had received a job to remove fly larvae. The resident advised the contractor that there was a problem with mites rather than flies. The contractor advised the resident that the mites would need to be identified before any treatment could be carried out.
4. The resident phoned the landlord on 20 January 2023 as she said the problem with the mites had still not been resolved. She stated that the landlord’s staff member had raised “a high priority for decant” due to the mite infestation and the landlord had logged a formal complaint.
5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 January 2023 and advised her that it could not authorise a decant before it had identified the type of mites. The resident said she was concerned that they could cause allergies and had sent her daughter to stay elsewhere as her daughter suffered from allergies.
6. The resident stated that she could not use the kitchen and the whole of the downstairs area was “out of bounds”. The resident stated that the mites had spread throughout the property due to the delay in the landlord resolving the issue.
7. After requesting an earlier appointment, the resident was offered an appointment on 26 January 2023. However, the landlord had contacted the resident on 25 January 2023 and advised her that the pest control contractor had said the pesticide spray should be done before the mould wash was carried out. Therefore, the landlord said it had rebooked the mould wash and the pesticide spraying to be done on 27 January 2023.
8. On 27 January 2023, the mould wash was done and the pest control contractor took samples of the mites.
9. The resident confirmed that a contractor had attended the property on 28 January 2023 to shampoo the carpet. However, the resident said that the contractor had damaged the carpet.
10. The resident said she had written to the landlord on 28 January 2023 and attached photos of the carpet and mould she had found behind the kitchen cupboards.
11. After the resident had removed the kitchen cupboards from the wall they had found the passive vent.
12. The resident said she chased the pest control contractor on 3 February 2023 for the results of the samples taken but was told it would take a further 2 weeks for the results. She then contacted the contractor again on 14 February 2023 and was told the results had been sent to the landlord on 8 February 2023.
13. The resident stated that the landlord had not provided her with any updates during February 2023.
14. The resident advised the landlord’s surveyor who inspected the property on 20 March 2023 that she was requesting a new kitchen.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord raised an order for thermal boarding to be carried out to the flank wall of the kitchen and living room.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 April 2023 it raised an order and booked an appointment with the resident for new extractor fans to be fitted in the kitchen and bathroom on 19 April 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2023 to request an update on the outstanding jobs. The landlord advised the resident that it was recovering from the impact of a cyber attack.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2023 requesting a new kitchen due to reported mould issues. She stated that her daughter had not been staying in the property since January 2023 due to allergies and said it had taken the landlord 7 weeks to deal with the infestation of mites. The resident questioned why she had not received any appointments for works following the surveyor’s visit on 20 March 2023.
The landlord’s records show that an operative attended the property on 19 April 2023 to install extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. However, the job notes stated that the resident refused to allow the contractor to install the fan in the kitchen on 19 April 2023 due to the location of the fan proposed by the operative. Therefore, the work did not proceed. The job notes stated that the resident contacted the landlord on the same day to ask why the kitchen fan was being situated in a different position than she had previously been advised by the surveyor. The contractor completed the installation of the extractor fans on 10 May 2023. The records also show that on 11 May 2023 it carried out a mould wash to affected areas in the kitchen.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the job to fit the thermal boarding was completed on 26 June 2023.
On 28 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided a decoration voucher for her to buy materials to redecorate the kitchen and living room.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2023 to report mould on her living room carpet and on the vinyl flooring under the carpet.
The landlord’s records show that it completed works to the kitchen on 29 June 2023, which included the replacement of one base unit and 2 wall units, worktop replacement, some retiling, the replacement of 6 floor tiles and renewal of plinths and skirting boards.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 to say she was satisfied with the works completed. However, she said there were some finishing issues with the kitchen tiles and the reinstatement of her living room carpet. The resident also mentioned that she had found mould under the living room carpet and although some of the kitchen floor tiles had been replaced, there were still some mouldy floor tiles. She requested the landlord to post-inspect the works.
The landlord’s records show that an operative visited the property on 18 July 2023 in response to the resident’s email reporting mould on the living room carpet and on the flooring under the carpet. The operative’s notes stated that he did not consider the resident’s carpet to be mouldy. The notes suggest that the operative took no further action as he suggested waiting until the weather changed to see if the thermal boarding would be effective.
The resident wrote to this Service on 19 July 2023 and stated that she had made a separate complaint about an operative who had been abusive towards her when he had attended the property to fit the extractor fans.
On 9 August 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply (peer review final response) in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord said that a surveyor had attended the property in March 2023 and had raised works to resolve the damp and mould, including thermal boarding (completed 29 June 2023), installation of new kitchen and bathroom fans (completed 10 May 2023) and a mould wash (completed 11 May 2023).
2. Some works were identified to the kitchen but a full replacement was not considered necessary. The kitchen works were completed on 29 June 2023.
3. The landlord said it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen on 22 August 2023 to provide a second opinion about whether a replacement was necessary. The surveyor would also check that the mould works had been effective in resolving the mould problems and would inspect the kitchen floor and the living room carpet to assess whether the landlord had any further responsibility (the landlord had previously cleaned the carpet).
4. The landlord referred to a complaint the resident had made about a staff member being abusive towards her and asked her to provide further details so it could investigate.
5. The landlord had paid the £50 compensation awarded at stage one into the resident’s rent account on 22 March 2023 as the account had been in arrears.
6. The landlord said it had found a service failure in the amount of time the issues had taken to resolve and therefore awarded further compensation of £608.40 made up as follows:
  1. £250 for the time taken to resolve the issues, disruption, vulnerabilities and repeat visits.
  2. £258.40 for the loss of the kitchen for 2 weeks calculated at 50% of the rent.
  3. £100 for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

As stated in its stage 2 reply, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 22 August 2022 and identified various works to the kitchen units and living room. The surveyor stated that he had tested for dampness and had not found any evidence of dampness or condensation. The surveyor noted, however, that the contractor who had carried out earlier work would need to be recalled to address some defects in the work.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2023 with detailed information about the conduct of one of the landlord’s staff in April 2023.
The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 16 October 2023 to request an update on the works that had been identified by the surveyor on 22 August 2023. She stated that she had not been contacted about the work.
The resident wrote to this Service on 3 January 2024 and stated that she had submitted a Subject Access Request to the landlord and, as a result, she had received information from the landlord regarding the surveyor’s inspection on 22 August 2023. She stated that the surveyor had not produced a schedule of works until 15 December 2023.
The landlord’s records state that it had booked a 3-stage mould treatment at the property on 15 December 2023 and this work was completed.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 9 January 2024 and identified further remedial works. The surveyor recommended the replacement of the carpet.
On 15 January 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the delay in the surveyor submitting his report following his inspection on 22 August 2023.
The resident wrote to this Service on 23 July 2024 with additional information regarding her complaint, including the reported delay in the landlord progressing the repairs identified during the inspection on 22 August 2023. The resident stated that the work had commenced on 12 February 2024 but that the landlord had not post-inspected the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident advised the landlord on 2 March 2023 that she was seeing a doctor due to allergies which she said had been caused by the pesticide used in her property. The resident also advised this Service that that while cleaning the property in May 2023 following the pest treatments, she injured her back. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident has brought to the attention of the Ombudsman various events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 9 August 2023. For example, the resident wrote to this Service on 3 January 2024 and stated that the landlord had not produced a schedule of works from its inspection on 22 August 2023 until 15 December 2023.
A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context. Consequently, the reported delay in the landlord producing the schedule of works has not been investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mite infestation in her property

The landlord’s Decant Policy states:
1. “Tenants may be required to move out of their home temporarily in the following circumstances:
  1. Emergency health and safety works are required because the whole or a significant part of the property is uninhabitable, and / or unsafe or hazardous.
  2. Work is required to a building that may be harmful to the household, e.g. chemical work…”
The landlord’s Pest and Wildlife Policy states:
1. “Responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between [the landlord], our residents and the local authority. Where residents have responsibilities for preventing and eradicating pests, we provide advice on the best action to take”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2023 to report an infestation of mould mites in her property. In response, the landlord raised an order for an operative to wash and clean the mould. As the resident had reported mould mites, the landlord had acted reasonably by raising an order for an operative to clean the mould. The operative would also be able to report back if the infestation needed wider or more specialist treatment.
The operative attended on 16 January 2023 to carry out the cleaning and therefore had attended within a reasonable timescale, which was less than a week after the resident had reported the problem. The operative carried out some cleaning of the mould and reported back to the landlord that he had seen the mites on the kitchen surfaces and on the resident’s laptop computer.
It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not contacted the resident immediately after the operative’s visit on 16 January 2023. This prompted the resident to write to her MP on 18 January 2023 and submit a stage one complaint on 19 January 2023. In response, the landlord spoke to the resident on 23 January 2023 and agreed that a full mould wash would be undertaken and would include the kitchen units and possibly behind the units to remove any mould from the walls. The landlord also raised an order on 25 January 2023 for a pest control contractor to carry out treatment to eradicate the mites. The landlord therefore took reasonable action by arranging a further mould wash and for a pest controller to deal with the reported mites infestation.
The pest control contractor attended on 27 January 2023 to take samples of the mites for testing. The contractor then attended on 16 February 2023 to carry out the first pesticide spray. Therefore, the contractor responded within a reasonable timescale to carry out the sampling and the treatment after the landlord had raised the order.
The evidence shows that there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s communication regarding the treatment of the mites. For example, the resident stated in her email dated 2 April 2023 that she had received a call from the pest controller on 19 January 2023 regarding treatment for fly larvae rather than the reported mites. There were also communication issues around the timing of the mould wash and the insecticide treatments. However, overall, in terms of the time taken by the landlord to address the reported infestation of mites, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale because:
1. It took about 7 weeks from the resident’s first report on 11 January 2023 to the final insecticide treatment on 2 March 2023. Although the time taken was longer than the 28-day period for non-emergency works, the time taken was partly because the contractor had to test samples to identify the type of mites and had to wait 14 days between the 2 treatments.
2. During the period, the landlord had arranged for other works to be carried out to deal with the reported mites, including:
  1. The landlord had arranged mould washes.
  2. The landlord had supplied a dehumidifier to reduce humidity levels as recommended by the pest control contractor.
  3. The landlord had arranged for a contractor to shampoo the carpets on 28 January 2023.
The evidence shows that the pest control contractor advised the resident not to access the property for 6 hours after the insecticide spraying. The contractor also wrote to the resident to advise her about the treatment that would be carried out. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord or the pest control contractor provided the resident with any safety information about remaining in the property after the initial 6-hour period. This was unreasonable as without this information the resident was unclear whether it was safe for her and her daughter to remain in the property following the insecticide treatments.
The resident confirmed in her email dated 2 March 2023 that she had been told not to clean the property for 14 days after the pesticide was sprayed on 16 February 2023 and for a further 2 weeks after the spraying on 2 March 2023. This was not disputed by the landlord in its stage one or stage 2 replies and it is supported by the information that the contractor had sent to the resident in February 2023.
The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine whether it was safe for the resident to remain in the property following the insecticide spraying and therefore this Service is unable to say whether the resident should have been decanted. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have discussed the risks with the resident and to have considered a temporary decant in the context of such a discussion. The pest control contractor’s report stated that it had sprayed a high residual insecticide, which indicated that the insecticide would remain on the surfaces for a period following the spraying.
The landlord’s Decant Policy cites “chemical work” as one of the scenarios where a resident may be temporarily decanted. In this case, the contractor had used a chemical insecticide and it was known that the chemical would remain on the surfaces for a period. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not discussed the possibility of a temporary decant with the resident or reassured her that it was safe to remain in the property following the treatments, taking the individual circumstances of the family into account.
It was particularly important for the resident to be made aware of the risks of remaining in the property as the kitchen was the main area affected by the insecticide treatment. Therefore, it was important for the resident to know about any risks, for example, in relation to the preparation of food.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage one reply that it had not believed a decant had been justified. However, it did not go on to provide any reassurance or comment on the safety of the insecticide treatment in its stage one or stage 2 replies. The resident had clearly expressed her concerns about the safety of the insecticide treatment in her email dated 2 March 2023 and had stated that she believed she had developed allergies because of the insecticide treatments. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord could not comment on the resident’s medical situation, it should, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have provided some general information about the safety of the chemicals used by the contractor. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not addressed this in its stage one or stage 2 replies given that the resident had expressed her anxiety about the chemicals that had been used.
In summary, this Service has found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mite infestation:
1. The landlord did not discuss the risks involved in the resident and her daughter remaining in the property between the 2 insecticide treatments and after the final treatment.
2. The landlord did not use its stage one or stage 2 replies to directly address the resident’s concerns about whether it had been safe to remain in the property during the insecticide treatment period.
These failings meant that the resident continued to be anxious about her safety and that of her daughter, as expressed in her complaint dated 2 March 2023. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mite infestation. This Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The sum of £300 is in addition to the sums already offered by the landlord.

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

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states:
1. “Non-emergency repairs are appointed by the contact centre at the initial point of contact…and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported”.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), “Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing”.
On 11 January 2023, the resident reported the presence of mould, which she believed had caused ‘mould mites’ in the kitchen. During that month, operatives carried out mould washes on 16 and 27 January 2023. In addition, the landlord had delivered a dehumidifier on 30 January 2023 to reduce the levels of moisture and humidity in the property. The landlord had therefore taken reasonable steps initially to deal with the reported mould in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023 to say that the landlord had not contacted her regarding the condition of the kitchen units and the damp. She believed she needed extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
Although, as previously stated, the landlord had carried out mould washes, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident to arrange an inspection to identify the cause of the reported damp and mould. It had been 7 weeks since the resident had reported the presence of mould on 11 January 2023. In the absence of the landlord identifying the causes of the damp and mould through an inspection, any problems were likely to persist.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 8 March 2023. He confirmed that an air vent needed to be blocked up behind one of the kitchen base units, extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom and thermal boarding should be fitted to the external wall between the kitchen and living room. One of the landlord’s surveyors carried out a further inspection of the property on 20 March 2023. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord had not acted on the findings from the survey it had carried out on 8 March 2023 and why it needed a further inspection on 20 March 2023. This added to the delay in ordering the necessary works and it was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not acted on the findings of the earlier inspection.
The landlord raised an order on 5 April 2023 to install the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and an operative attended on 19 April 2023 to install the fans. Therefore, after raising the order, the landlord had appropriately booked the appointment within its prescribed 28-day period for non-emergency work. However, the work did not proceed on this date because the resident questioned why the operative was intending to install the kitchen fan in a different location than she had been advised by the surveyor. The evidence shows that there was a difference of views between the surveyor and the operative in terms of where the extractor fan should be fitted. Such differences do occur and would not necessarily indicate a failing on the part of the landlord or its contractor. The fans were fitted on 10 May 2023, which was a reasonable timescale following the abortive visit on 19 April 2023.
The resident advised this Service on 19 July 2023 that she had made a separate complaint about the operative who had attended the property in April 2023 to fit the extractor fans. The landlord requested further details about the incident in its stage 2 reply dated 9 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to request details about the incident as the evidence shows that at the time of sending its stage 2 reply, it had not received specific details about the events. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2023 with details of the events involving the operative. The Ombudsman has not investigated the events in detail as the information about the incident was sent to the landlord after the landlord’s stage 2 reply and this Service has not seen the landlord’s response to the information sent by the resident.
The work to fit the thermal boarding was completed on 26 June 2023, which was almost 16 weeks after the inspection on 8 March 2023 had identified the need for thermal boarding. Although the work was a non-routine job and was considered to be planned works rather than a day-to-day repair, the time taken was nevertheless inappropriate as it meant there was a delay in the landlord addressing one of the identified causes of the damp and mould.
The landlord carried out works to the kitchen on 29 June 2023, including replacing some of the units, tiling and worktop replacement. Given that the resident had written to the landlord on 2 March 2023 and attached photos showing that the kitchen needed repairs, it was unreasonable that the landlord had taken almost 4 months to carry out the work to the kitchen. The delay prompted the resident to chase the landlord on 12 and 19 April 2023 regarding the condition of the kitchen. In the latter email, the resident reported that some of the kitchen units had been damaged by the damp and mould.
The landlord offered the resident a decorations voucher on 28 June 2023 to redecorate the kitchen and living room. This was reasonable as the evidence indicates that some of the decorations had been affected, particularly in the kitchen.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 to say she was generally satisfied with the works that had been carried out. However, she mentioned some outstanding finishing work and that there was still mould on some of the kitchen floor tiles and under the living room carpet. She also stated that her carpet had been damaged by mould. She therefore requested the landlord to post-inspect the works.
In response, an operative attended the property on 18 July 2023 to inspect the carpet and reported back that he did not consider the carpet to be mouldy. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the carpet and kitchen flooring to be inspected as the resident had reported they were mouldy. The landlord was also entitled to rely on the findings of the operative. However, in its stage 2 reply, the landlord said it would obtain a second opinion regarding the carpet and the flooring by arranging for one of its surveyors to carry out an inspection on 22 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to obtain a second opinion from a surveyor as the resident believed that the carpet and the flooring were mouldy.
As mentioned earlier, the Ombudsman has not investigated the events that took place after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, including the outcome from the inspection on 22 August 2023.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found the following failings in terms of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs:
1. It took 7 weeks following the resident’s initial report of mould on 11 January 2023 for the landlord to arrange for one of its surveyors to inspect the property on 8 March 2023.
2. It took almost 16 weeks for the thermal boarding to be fitted following the surveyor’s inspection on 8 March 2023.
3. It took almost 4 months after the insecticide treatment for the landlord to carry out the renewal of the kitchen units and other works to the kitchen.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and offering compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman’s view is that the £508.40 offered by the landlord at stage 2 was proportionate to reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident in relation to the reported damp and mould and associated repairs. In arriving at this finding, the Ombudsman has taken into account that some level of disruption is inevitable when such works are undertaken. Also, some of the work, such as the fitting of the thermal boarding, was considered to be planned maintenance rather than day-to-day repairs and therefore would take longer than the 28-day target for routine day-to-day repairs.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the reported damp and mould and associated repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

At the time of the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord had in place an ‘interim’ complaint policy, which consisted of a 2-stage complaints process. The policy stated that stage one complaints would be dealt with within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. The interim policy was put in place after the landlord fell victim to a serious cyber-attack.
The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 19 January 2023 and the landlord replied on 17 March 2023. Therefore, the landlord took 41 working days to reply, which was double the time stipulated in its interim complaints policy. This was inappropriate as the resident had reported a mite infestation and was concerned that it would spread. In terms of mitigation, the landlord had spoken to the resident on 23 January 2023 and agreed that a full mould wash would be carried out. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 10 March 2023 to apologise and explain that it was not yet able to reply to the complaint.
In its stage one reply, the landlord acknowledged the delay in replying and offered the resident £50 compensation. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that it will offer £50 per quarter for a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. The offer was also in the range of sums stipulated in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer was proportionate and it had made a reasonable offer of redress.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with its stage one reply. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 9 August 2023, which was 88 working days after the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord therefore took considerably longer than the 40 working days stipulated in its interim complaint policy. The time taken by the landlord to reply to the complaint was therefore inappropriate.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord acknowledged the delay in replying to the complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation. The sum offered was again in line with its compensation policy and with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer was proportionate.
Overall, the landlord failed to meet its prescribed targets for replying to complaints at both stages of the process. However, it acknowledged its failings and at each stage it made reasonable offers of redress to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a mite infestation in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord dealt with the reported infestation of mites within a reasonable timescale. However, it did not discuss the risks involved in the resident and her daughter remaining in the property for the period between the 2 insecticide treatments and after the final treatment. The landlord did not use its stage one or stage 2 replies to directly address the resident’s concerns about whether it had been safe to remain in the property for the 14-day period after each of the insecticide treatments.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and offering compensation to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs. The amount offered by the landlord was proportionate to reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident.
The landlord failed to meet its prescribed targets for replying to complaints at both stages of the process. However, it acknowledged its failings and at each stage it made reasonable offers of redress to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 for its handling of the reported mite infestation.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £608.40 offered at stage 2 if this has not already been paid.