Connexus Homes Limited (202227752)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227752

Connexus Homes Limited

26 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her furniture due to damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in February 2010 and ended in February 2023.  The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records state that the resident notified the landlord in September 2020 that she had a physical impairment.
3. In February 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that she had raised a complaint about damp and mould in 2013. A positive input ventilation unit was installed to remedy the issue.  She considered that the landlord had not monitored damp and mould following on from the installation.  When she was in the process of moving out of the property, she discovered there was mould under the carpets. She said she had to throw several items of furniture away because of the smell of damp and mould. 
4. The landlord responded.  It said that it had inspected the property once the resident had made it aware.  It said that it had identified that the external ground levels were higher than normal. However, the damp proof course was performing as it should.  It had viewed the photographs provided by the resident.  It said that the black residue under the carpets would normally be as a result of high humidity levels which were captured when its surveyor attended.
5. It had checked through its repair records. There had been no reports of damp & mould since it had fitted the unit in 2013. If it had been put on notice that there was an issue it would have responded accordingly. It had not been provided any photographic evidence of any damage to furniture. It appreciated that the resident had said that this was because it was difficult to evidence a musty smell.  It did not accept that there was any damage caused and the complaint was not upheld.  It offered a good will gesture of £150. The resident declined the offer and raised a stage 2 complaint.
6. The landlord responded. It reiterated its position as stated in its stage 1 response.  It said that the resident had also queried whether it had to complete any works to the property relating to damp and mould prior to it reletting the property. It confirmed it had not had to complete any works related to damp and mould ahead of re-letting. It had not found evidence of issues with the property that would have caused any damage, so it was therefore unable to uphold the complaint. It reiterated its good will gesture of £150.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied because she considered that the offer of compensation did not reflect the damage caused.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), 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 mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
9. At the time of this complaint the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place. It did however issue one shortly after the complaint process had been exhausted in May 2023.  The policy states that it will treat all reports as urgent.  It will make contact with the customer within 5 working days and agree an appointment to attend within 10 working days.
10. The landlord’s compensation procedure states that where an insurance claim for damage to property is made this will be managed by its insurance officer and will not form part of the compensation procedure.  It states that where its insurers deem it has taken all reasonable precautions and no legal liability arises it will issue an explanatory letter and it will be passed back to the relevant operation manger to consider whether a good will payment should be made.
11. It is acknowledged that the resident had issues with Damp and mould in 2013 and she raised a formal complaint. To remedy the issues the landlord replaced the vinyl sheet in the bathroom and fitted a positive input ventilation unit. The landlord also provided compensation for damage to the resident’s belongings.
12. However, there was a gap of almost 10 years until the matter was raised again in January 2023. Given the passage of time, and the extensive gap in reporting between 2013 and 2023 this service has only investigated the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould related damage from January 2023 onwards.
13. It is however acknowledged that part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had failed to monitor the effectiveness of the works completed in 2013. The landlord’s response to this element of the complaint will be assessed within this investigation.
14. The pre-termination form completed on 11 January 2023 noted that smells of damp were observed by the resident, but it stated that there were no visible signs. The records then show that on 13 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that while preparing to move out she noticed damage to her bed. She then called in again on 19 January to advise that her bedside cabinet, mattress and bed were damaged. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident on 26 January 2023 to inspect. This was 6 working days after it was put on notice. This was a reasonable response time and coincides with its damp and mould policy.
15.  During the inspection the landlord identified that the external ground levels were higher than normal but that the damp proof course was performing as it should. The landlord said within its stage 1 response that it had viewed the resident’s pictures of black residue on the floors which were identified when the resident removed the carpets. It said that this would normally be as a result of high humidity levels which it had captured when its surveyor had visited.
16. The landlord failed to explain the potential causes of high humidity levels which may have left some doubt for the resident as to the cause.  The landlord did however investigate the issue further within its stage 2 response. It explained that no works related to damp and mould were required ahead of re-letting the property.  It had therefore satisfied itself that there were no repairs related to damp and mould that it had responsibility for.  The evidence provided to this Service also supports this. 
17. The landlord was unable to see any visual photos of the damage caused to the resident’s furniture. It accepted the resident’s explanation that she was unable to evidence the smell which was the issue rather than visual damage. The additional difficulty was that most of the furniture had been disposed of. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had spoken to its property surveyor and housing officer to establish whether they had reported any smell of damp and mould during the visit in January 2023. Both officers said that they had not. This showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and investigated further. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
18. There is no evidence however that the landlord sought advice from its insurance officer or that its insurance officer had issued an explanatory letter. The landlord offered no explanation either why it had diverted from its compensation procedure.  Referral to its insurance officer could have formally clarified the landlord’s position in respect of liability. This would have also managed the resident’s expectations.  Furthermore, the resident was entitled to receive advice from the appropriate level of expertise.  That it did not was a service failure.  An order has been made in respect of this below.
19. It is acknowledged however that the landlord offered £150 as a good will gesture.  The good will gesture was reasonable and in accordance with its compensation procedure. 
20. In respect of follow on works after the installation of the positive input ventilation unit in 2013. The landlord’s explained that it had checked its records and no repairs relating to damp and mould had been raised since the installation. The resident did not dispute this either. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she agrees to report to the landlord any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible for.  The landlord’s explanation in respect of follow up works since 2013 was in accordance with the terms of the tenancy. It had not been made aware that there were any issues with damp and mould so was unable to respond. Its response to this part of the complaint was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
21. In summary the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damage to her furniture in a timely manner.  The records show that it had been in regular communication with the resident. Its complaint responses showed a thorough investigation into the issues. It also provided a clear explanation of its position. The landlord failed however to explain why it had diverted from its procedure. The resident was not therefore given the opportunity to present her case to its insurance officer.  This resulted in the resident having to spend further time and effort pursuing her complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure and an order has been made to put this right below.
22. The landlord’s compensation offer of £150 was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord has therefore made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was proportionate to the impact that its failure had on the resident. This Service has not therefore ordered any further redress.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to her furniture due to damp and mould.

Orders

24. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £150 as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
    3. Write to the resident to advise her how she can make a claim to its insurance team.  A copy of this should be shared with this Service also within 28 days.