Cornwall Housing Limited (202104789)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104789

Cornwall Housing Limited

12 October 2022

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was a secure tenant of the landlord and had been so since 2014. However, she has since advised this Service that she moved to a new address in March 2022 and is no longer a tenant of the landlord
The resident’s tenancy agreement defined her property as including “any buildings and land within the defined boundary of the property”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy notes that if “there is a serious service failure, we may pay compensation”. “Damage to property and belongings due to our negligence” is provided as an example of when compensation may be paid.
Under a section titled “Quantifiable Loss”, the policy further explains the landlord will “consider” paying compensation for reasonable costs, including where there has been “damage to (a resident’s) belongings caused by deteriorating living conditions, due to our failure to carry out…repairs”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, with a Tenants Panel reviewing complaint files at Stage Two. Its policy states it will provide a complaint outcome within 10 working days unless an extension is agreed. Its policy defines a complaint as “any feedback where (a resident is) dissatisfied with the service…received”.
The complaints policy notes that “in certain circumstances the complaints procedure may not be the best solution to your issue”. It advises that “in these situations, your case will be passed to the most relevant team to resolve”, giving the examples of complaints regarding banding on its housing register, decisions made by the landlord regarding homelessness applications and “anti-social behaviour and neighbour issues”. The policy states the landlord will “always discuss with you if we think your issues will be best resolved by a route other than the complaints procedure”.

Summary of Events

On 23 May 2020, landlord records show a damp specialist company wrote to the landlord to provide a quotation for “the specialist works identified below” at the resident’s property. It clarified that the quotation did “not constitute a survey/inspection report or infer that a full inspection of the property has been undertaken hence it may not fully reflect all works required” and that its quotation was “limited…to the areas (the landlord) identified and asked us to attend to”.
Within the quotation provided to the landlord, it advised it had carried out a “visual inspection of…surfaces for evidence of mould growth” and the damp specialist noted the following:
1. “Black spot mould/condensation was noted to the larder, under stair cupboard and external store areas”. It provided two photographs showing “mould growth to outhouse”.
2. It was “of the understanding (from the resident) that there is no issue with leaks to the outhouse roof”.
3. It advised that there was a build-up of “excessive humidity/condensation within the property” and the existing extractor fans within the resident’s kitchen were “found to be adequate”. It stressed the resident should use this “as and when necessary” and in a “tenant note” provided advice on how she could reduce condensation within the property.
4. It provided two photographs of “areas to be decluttered by (the) tenant” and recommended that “the wall surfaces to be painted” should also be “washed with a fungicide prior to re decoration with a (Therma wall paint)”. It also proposed to pressure wash the “external store rooms prior to the application of the mould paint”, while the “walls within the under-stair cupboard and larder” would also be painted with a mould paint.
5. It proposed to “supply/install vents to the under stairs and larder doors”; “pressure wash wall/ceiling surfaces within the external stores” before the application of anti-mould and a sandtex finish; and apply Therma paint “to the larder and under stair cupboard external walls”, which the tenant would then be able to redecorate.
On 23 April 2021, internal landlord correspondence shows an email exchange between several departments, apparently prompted by contact from the resident. Initially addressed to the landlord’s Insurance Officer, it advised the resident “has advised she has not yet been paid from the claim form she did about the shed, and it still waiting for a claim form about the bed base”. It noted she had “requested this several times” and asked for her to be contacted.
The correspondence shows there was disagreement between the various teams regarding the issue and who should be dealing with it. Staff from the landlord’s Finance Team advised they were unaware of any insurance or compensation claims, while staff from its Policy Team advised the matter would be best treated as a complaint and the resident should be contacted and advised to submit one before it would consider any insurance or compensation claims.
In a further internal email sent on 26 April 2021, a surveyor noted “all (the resident’s) stuff was affected by damp and mould” and that on an unspecified date “I did say to (the resident) that I would resolve the property repair issues but any claim she (had) would have to go to (our) insurers”.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident stating it had “received the details as below”, although it is not apparent from its records what the details of the resident’s contact was. It advised it was contacting her as it did not “currently have any record of a complaint being made by you”. It noted the resident had “mentioned compensation” but it needed her to log an “official complaint by responding to this email” before it would consider any compensation request.
Landlord records show it received a complaint from the resident the following day. This Service has not seen the original complaint itself, but landlord records show it noted the following:
1. The resident requested a call back from a Housing Manager regarding “the condition of (her) property and the damp and the issues with her health related to it”.
2. She was due to receive a call from the landlord’s surveyor regarding “the insurance claim” and it queried whether the issues were “all related”.
3. The resident had alleged that “some of her furniture and belongings in the house itself are damp and mouldy and wet”.
It determined it was “not a housing manager issue” and queried if the resident had a “complaint open about all the damp or just the outhouse?”
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge her complaint and provided a named contact who would provide its response. It stated it understood the complaint to be about her property being “extremely damp and mouldy, leading to your (personal) property being damaged”. It advised it would provide a response to her complaint within 20 working days, which it noted was an amended timeframe caused by “capacity pressures…due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic”.
On 26 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her “query relating to damage”. It provided her with “the relevant forms to enable (her) to pursue an insurance claim” and noted this replaced a form it had sent on 13 October 2020 which “had not been received by (our) Insurance Section”.
The following day, 27 May 2021, the resident contacted this Service, stating she had not received a response from the landlord regarding complaints she made about damp in her property. She stated the landlord had not “done much to resolve her issues” and she wanted the landlord to rehouse her as the property was not suitable for her needs. This Service contacted the landlord the same day and requested it respond to the resident. This Service advised the resident had reported not receiving a response “for nine weeks” and that:
1. Mould had “moved into multiple areas of the property” and personal items.
2. She had begun experiencing health problems, which she stated were related to damp and mould.
3. She was forced to sleep on the floor as “everything” in her home was damp, including her bedding and clothing.
The landlord replied to this Service on 31 May 2021, advising it had only become aware of the complaint on 25 May 2021 and as such, it was still investigating. It advised it planned to issue a response to the resident by 8 June 2021.
On 6 June 2021, records show the resident re-submitted an insurance claim form. She provided an itemised list of “stuff” which she said had been damaged by damp and mould, although she did not provide any costings for the items and advised she did not have any receipts. The claim form stated that the “incident” causing the damage took place in “May 2020”. The landlord wrote to her in response two days later “concerning your complaint” and insurance claim. It advised it had been “unable to find” a form she said she had previously submitted and provided another form, which it asked her to return so it could “take appropriate action”.
The resident contacted this Service again on 8 July 2021 to advise she had still not received a complaint response from the landlord. She also stated a surveyor had attended her property, although she did not specify when, and reported back to the landlord who then advised her she was “in a queue”, although it was unclear if this referred to repairs or something else. She also reported that the landlord had not sent her a claim form regarding her damaged belongings, despite her asking for one “multiple times”. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to request it provide a response to the resident’s complaint.
On 16 July 2021, the resident contacted this Service as the landlord had not provided a complaint response. The same day, records show the landlord emailed her and apologised for “the delay in responding to your enquiry”. It went on to advise it had looked into her complaint and determined she now needed “to get in touch with our Insurance Team regarding the damage to your furniture” so the matter could be resolved.
This Service contacted the resident on 19 July 2021 following her call. She confirmed she had still not received a complaint response from the landlord, although she had “had inspectors attend” the property. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to send a final request for it to provide a complaint response and to advise it of the process for issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CFHO) if it did not do so.
Landlord records show it had emailed the resident on 19 July 2021 to advise it had sent her details to its Insurance Team and someone would be in contact that day. Two days later, it sent a further email in which it clarified that her concerns were “no longer a matter for (our) complaints (team)” and that there was “nothing further we can do for you”.
Internal landlord correspondence from 29 July 2021, which copied in the Complaints Team, noted a Disrepair Surveyor attended the resident’s property the previous day. He attached a number of photos which were described as “not good” and advised the resident “would like to put in a claim for personal possessions that are being damaged by mould” and noted that “she calls this damp”. The surveyor’s email further advised that:
1. “The mould is caused by atmospheric moisture condensing in these areas” (it did not specify which areas) but that the resident was “claiming for all types of furniture.
2. He did not “believe we are at fault for this and (the landlord has) certainly not been negligent in my opinion”.
The Disrepair Surveyor sent a further email on 3 August 2021 which reiterated that mould growth was a result of “atmospheric moisture condensing around the cold spots within the property”. He further noted that:
1. “The resident has been drying clothes around the property” and during his visit she “only had limited windows open”.
2. Atmospheric moisture was “normally down to lifestyle and as such (the landlord) cannot be held negligent”.
3. If there had been a “water ingress issue which was not resolved for a period” then the landlord could have been liable, “but this is not the case”.
4. The resident had advised him her own insurer “had refused to pay out for the damage”.
On 5 August 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive to confirm a CFHO had been issued and the landlord should provide the resident with a complaint response by 12 August 2021. Records show it did not do so.
This Service contacted the resident on 19 August 2021 for an update and she advised the landlord had attended her property and “installed some fans”, although she did not state when, but it had not responded to her complaint “or addressed the mould in (her) property”. She confirmed the landlord had sent her an insurance claim form, but she remained dissatisfied as she had not been “compensated for her damaged belongings” and the landlord had not resolved the “continually returning mould and damp”.
This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to advise it considered its complaints procedure had been exhausted as there had been repeated failures in the handling of the complaint, as per Paragraph 33 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and the resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation. (The Scheme was updated on 1 October 2022 and the relevant paragraph is now Paragraph 32.)
The landlord responded to this Service on 23 August 2021. It advised there had been illness and absence within the team that dealt with complaints and that a meeting had been scheduled with this Service for September 2021 to discuss their current circumstances. However, it also clarified the following:
1. It had not treated the resident’s contact as a complaint and that her “request for compensation for damp and mould was investigated as a request for service”.
2. A surveyor had visited her property and “advised…that there is no penetrating damp and that the mould has been caused by atmospheric moisture settling on cold spots causing condensation”.
3. There were “no outstanding repairs or defects to the property which would contribute to mould growth”.
The resident had been provided with insurance claim forms “several times” regarding “items she claims she has had to throw away” and had even had one hand delivered to her. It advised it had now passed the form to the relevant team for it to be processed.
It had contacted the resident and made her aware “it was now a matter for the insurers and not for its complaints team”.
The landlord sent a further email to this Service the following day. It advised an email it had sent this Service on 20 August 2021 had been ‘bounced back’. It advised the resident’s insurance claim was being processed by the Local Authority, which it stated was a separate entity, as “there (are) no outstanding repairs to the property or any defects causing the mould reported by the tenant”. It also provided the text of an email it advised it had tried to send this Service on 20 August 2021, but which had been ‘bounced back’. In this email, the landlord had reiterated it classed the resident’s contact as a “Request for Service” rather than as a complaint and that it considered the matters raised to be “out of scope of our complaints process” as they related to an insurance claim against the Local Authority.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

It does not seem to be in dispute that the resident reported damp and mould issues at her property and that she claimed some of her personal belongings were damaged by the damp and mould. However, from the information available, it is unclear precisely when the resident first raised these concerns. While the landlord has provided a copy of a quotation for works provided by a damp specialist contractor in May 2020, this Service has not seen any records which clarify when the issue was first reported and when, or if, the works quoted for were completed. The landlord is therefore unable to evidence it responded to the resident’s reports appropriately and investigated the issues she raised in a reasonable manner.
An accurate audit trail is a crucial part of a landlord’s service delivery. As part of this investigation, this Service requested the landlord’s full repair records regarding the reported damp and mould including any “correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning (the resident’s) reports”, “records concerning the landlord’s investigation into their reports”, “copies of any survey or inspection reports” and “confirmation the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repair(s)”. However, other than the above-mentioned quotation for works and internal email correspondence from April and May 2021 which does not provide a full timeline of events and actions taken, nothing else was provided this investigation. This is not appropriate, and the landlord has not provided any explanation for this.
The damp specialists’ quotation for works, completed in May 2020, was careful to clarity that it did “not constitute a survey/inspection”. However, its report did note there was black spot mould in the resident’s larder, under stair cupboard and external store areas, which indicates the landlord was aware of the reported issues at least as early as May 2020. The contractor proposed installing vents in the larder and under stair cupboard and applying a Therma paint (used to reduce condensation) before redecoration (to be carried out by the resident). It also recommended carrying out a pressure wash of the walls and ceilings in the external stores, before applying anti-mould paint.
However, in the absence of any formal repair records being made available to this invest8iation, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord ultimately proceeded with arranging the works quoted for and recommended. There is no evidence it carried out an initial inspection of its own prior to arranging for the damp specialist to attend, or that it sought to arrange any further inspections after receiving the works quotation.
In the information provided to this investigation, there is no further reference to repair issues in the resident’s property until 27 April 2021, when a surveyor advised via internal landlord correspondence that he had attended the property and noted the resident’s possessions were “affected by damp and mould”. The surveyor also confirmed he had advised the resident the landlord would “resolve the property repair issues”. However, no further details are provided. Within the information provided by the landlord, there are no details regarding when the surveyor attended the property, when the resident was advised that repair issues would be “resolved”, what the repair issues identified by the surveyor actually were or when they would be carried out. The lack of detail and any formal repair records are concerning. While the above emails indicate the landlord did attend the property to investigate the reported damp and mould at some stage, having noted the resident’s possessions were affected and there were issues to be resolved, there is no evidence that it took any further action at that time. This is not appropriate.
Additionally, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, as this Service has not seen any information relating to the reports of damp and mould between the quotation for works in May 2020 and the above emails in April 2021, the landlord does not appear to have progressed the issue for around 11 months. This is an unreasonable delay for which it has not provided an explanation to the resident or to this Service. This is not appropriate and as a result the landlord is unable to evidence it responded reasonably to the resident’s reports or treated her fairly.
Following this, further landlord correspondence indicates a Disrepair Surveyor attended the resident’s property on 28 July 2021. His email acknowledged there was mould in the property but advised it was “caused by atmospheric moisture condensing in these areas”, although the areas he was referring to were not specified. While he attached photos taken during the visit, some of which showed areas of what appears to be green algae and black spot mould, they were described as being “not good” and there was no further explanation as to what the photos did, or did not, show. The surveyor advised he believed the landlord had “not been negligent” or that it was at “fault” for the condensation in the property. A further internal email sent by the surveyor on 3 August 2021 noted the resident was “drying clothes around the property” and did not have many windows open during his visit, before concluding that condensation was “normally down to lifestyle” and reiterating his opinion the landlord was therefore not “negligent”.
This Service has not seen any detailed inspection or survey reports or details of any further investigations the surveyor carried out, which means the landlord has not been able to provide clear evidence to support its findings regarding the cause of the condensation, damp and mould. It is noted that the landlord, in correspondence with this Service on 23 August 2021 after the resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation, advised that a surveyor had attended the resident’s property on an unspecified date. It advised he found “no penetrating damp” in the property and there were “no outstanding repairs or defects to the property which would contribute to mould growth”.
However, it is not appropriate that the landlord has not provided any survey reports that clarify the findings it made. It is unclear when the visit took place, or whether the resident had been informed of the findings, as her correspondence with this Service clearly indicates she was expecting further action from the landlord. Following the surveyor’s comment in the April 2021 email that “repair issues would be resolved”, it is unclear if the position the landlord set out to this Service in August 2021 (that there were no “outstanding repairs”) contradicts this or was intended to clarify that unspecified repairs had been completed. If it was the latter, it did not provide details of what the repairs were, or when they had been carried out.
It is noted that after her initial contact with this Service, the resident acknowledged the landlord did attend to install new vents in her property, but it is unclear when this work took place. However, it is also noted that this was over a year after the original quotation for works recommended installing vents, which appears to be a significant and unreasonable delay. In the absence of any repair records, the landlord is again unable to evidence actions it may have undertaken and whether these were carried out in a reasonable timeframe.
Overall, there is evidence of unexplained and likely avoidable delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould and a concerning lack of any clear repair records regarding the landlord’s investigation of the issue. There is also a lack of evidence regarding any steps it took in response to the resident’s reports. This is not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. Along with an order to compensate the resident, a recommendation has been made at the end of this report regarding the landlord’s record keeping.
It is also of concern that, from the information this investigation has seen, while the landlord’s damp specialist contractor and its own surveyors have all acknowledged the presence of damp within the resident’s home, the issue has been attributed to condensation caused by the resident’s lifestyle choices. In the absence of comprehensive repair records, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould appears to mainly be concerned with whether it is liable for any damages, rather than proactively investigating the issue. This was not appropriate and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord’s response did not appear to be treat the resident fairly.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published in October 2021) outlines that landlords should “review…their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed”. The landlord’s internal correspondence seen by this Service clearly apportions blame on the resident, citing the fact she dries washing “all over the house” and noting that few windows were open during a surveyor’s visit. However, it is not clear if this is the full extent of the landlord’s investigation of the issue or whether it had reached this conclusion based on one visit. While these factors may increase condensation within a property, having apparently satisfied itself that the mould was not caused by any leak or other “penetrating damp”, it was unreasonable that the landlord considered it did not need to take any further action as it was not “to blame”.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report also recommends that landlords “should consider their current approach to records keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust”. Having considered the landlord’s position regarding condensation being the resident’s responsibility and its poor record keeping in this case, a further order has been made at the end of this report for it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation

Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This is because it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence, and to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. However, this Service can consider whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably when considering any requests from residents, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
Records show the landlord contacted the resident and advised her she would need to submit a formal complaint before it would be able to consider her request for compensation. However, after initially acknowledging her complaint and stating it would provide a response in due course, two months later it wrote to her and advised it would no longer be responding and advised her to contact its insurer. The landlord has since advised this Service is it not privy to any contact between the insurer and the resident, so it remains unclear whether the resident’s insurance claim has been considered.
While it is acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation is non-specific (it does not stipulate a desired figure, or whether the compensation was intended to reflect service failure or to cover the cost of the goods she stated were damaged) there is no evidence the landlord sought to clarify this or that it considered whether any compensation was due to the resident. Other than internal emails which outlined its position that it was not at fault for any damp and mould issues, and signposting her to its insurers, it is not clear whether it at any point formally advised the resident of its decision that it would not be offering any compensation.
Referring the resident to its insurer was not an unreasonable step for the landlord to take. However, it was not appropriate that it first advised the resident to submit a complaint before it would consider her compensation request, only for it to then consider neither the complaint nor the compensation request. This would have left the resident confused having unfairly raised her expectations. It also did not provide a detailed explanation for why it had changed its position or offer any acknowledgement of the inconvenience likely to have been caused by it taking two months to do so. Overall, there is insufficient evidence the landlord’s response treated the resident fairly or that her request for compensation was properly considered. Taking the various failings into account, this amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The obligations of a member landlord are set out in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 9 of the Scheme confirms that a member must manage complaints in accordance with its published procedure or within a reasonable timescale. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in May 2021 and a further two occasions in July 2021 to request it provide the resident with a complaint response. However, after initially advising this Service on 31 May 2021 it was still investigating the complaint, having become aware of it a week beforehand, the landlord did not respond to further contact. It did not provide a complaint response at all, which led to a CHFO being issued on 5 August 2021. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not act in accordance with its obligations as a Scheme member.
The landlord’s complaints policy advises it considers a complaint to be “any feedback where (residents) are dissatisfied with the service you have received”. It notes complaints will remain open “until you are satisfied that it can be closed” and it aims to provide an outcome within ten working days. It also states it will “clearly explain why” if “there is any part of (a) complaint we cannot resolve, for example because it is…not consistent with our legal or policy duty”.
The landlord’s complaints policy also outlines that “in certain circumstances the complaints procedure may not be the best solution to your issue” and in these cases, it will refer residents to the most relevant team. It advises this will happen for complaints regarding its allocations policy and banding queries, homelessness decisions made under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and anti-social behaviour and neighbour issues. It does not give any other examples and advises it will “always discuss with you if we think your issue will best be resolved by a route other than the complaints procedure”.
Records show the resident had contacted the landlord in April 2021, apparently regarding a claim form for a damaged bed base. Within internal correspondence between several departments, it is noted that the landlord’s Policy Team advised the resident’s query would be “best treated as a complaint” and suggested she be contacted. However, there is no indication this happened. There was an unreasonable delay of a month before the landlord got in touch with the resident on 24 May 2021, in response to further contact from her. It advised it did not “have any record of a complaint being made” by the resident and requested she submit one if she wanted it to consider her request for compensation.
This was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take and it did not treat the resident fairly. Rather than put the onus on the resident to make further contact, it should have been more proactive in logging a complaint, as one staff member had suggested it do a month earlier. It could have done so when contacting her here, as well as clarifying the concerns the resident was raising, if necessary. It was also not entirely accurate when it advised her it had no record of receiving a complaint, having already acknowledged contact from her on 23 April 2021 and which its Policy Team identified as being a complaint. It also advised this Service on 31 May 2021 it was investigating the complaint, which it had only become aware of on 25 May, whereas the above evidence shows it had received contact from the resident in the April. This raises questions over the accuracy of the information the landlord was providing to both the resident and this Service.
Records show the resident did then contact the landlord again on 25 May 2021 to log a complaint as instructed. The landlord noted the complaint regarded “the condition of (her) property”. Following this, it appropriately acknowledged receipt and advised it understood the complaint to be about her property being “extremely damp and mouldy”. It provided a named member of staff who it advised would respond to the complaint as well as advising it would take longer to respond than its policy stated due to “capacity issues caused by the Covid-19 pandemic”. This was appropriate and a positive example of clear communication and proactive expectation management when dealing with complaints.
However, the landlord ultimately did not provide a complaint response to the resident at any stage, despite referring to it again during correspondence with her on 6 June 2021. There is no evidence it began any complaint investigation or considered the resident’s concerns over the condition of her property. Instead, it focused on the claims the resident had submitted, or had tried to submit, for damaged belongings. There was no reason the landlord could not have appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer regarding any potential claims, while also carrying out a separate complaint investigation into the wider issues she raised. That it did not do so was inappropriate and denied the resident the opportunity to have her concerns formally responded to, or appropriately processed through its complaint procedures.
It is also of concern that, having initially acted appropriately in acknowledging the resident’s complaint in May 2021 and clarifying the resident’s areas of concern, on 21 July 2021 it emailed her to advise her the issues were “no longer a matter for complaints” and signposting her to its insurance team. Its complaints team then clarified there was “nothing further we can do for you”. This was not appropriate, and the landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy as it failed to provide a clear reason for declining to investigate the complaint. Its decision did not treat the resident fairly and will have caused her distress and left her with the impression it was unwilling to consider or investigate the concerns she had raised over the state of her property.
After this Service concluded the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure as it had failed to provide any formal complaint response to her, the landlord advised this investigation that it had not treated the resident’s contact as a “request for service”. However, this does not appear to accurately reflect the version of events seen by this Service.
It is noted the landlord did originally accept the resident’s complaint and provided a complaint definition regarding the concerns she raised. Evidence shows that rather than treating her compensation request as a service request, the landlord itself initially advised the resident that she needed to submit a formal complaint before it would consider her compensation request. However, it later changed its position without providing a proper explanation. Its submissions to this Service also failed to acknowledge that its Policy Team identified the resident’s contact as being a complaint back in April 2021, but their advice was not acted on. The landlord further advised this Service it considered the resident’s complaint was “out of scope” as it related to an insurance claim. However, the landlord had logged the original complaint as regarding the condition of the resident’s property, rather than the progression of any insurance claim and, in any case, it did not provide this explanation to the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint is unsatisfactory and did not treat the resident fairly. Its explanation of its position regarding the complaint and the decisions it took are inconsistent and contradictory. There is evidence of an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident after her contact in April 2021, no evidence it began an investigation having accepted the complaint in May 2021 and it did not provide any appropriate explanation when it later decided not to progress the complaint through its complaint procedures. After an initial reply on 31 May 2021, it did not respond to this Service’s requests for it to provide a complaint response, even after it advised the resident it would not be doing so.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord subsequently advised this Service in October 2021 that it had experienced a significant increase in complaint cases and challenges with staffing, this does not adequately explain its inconsistent approach to the resident’s complaint or why it failed to respond to this Service’s requests for it to provide a complaint response. The failings by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint amount to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

In the absence of any comprehensive repair records, there is no evidence the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There is insufficient evidence it carried out appropriate investigation of the issue and, where it had arranged a quotation for works from a damp specialist, there is no evidence it acted on the quotation for the next twelve months. While it acknowledged the presence of damp and mould in the resident’s property, internal correspondence showed that it placed undue responsibility on the resident, concluding she was causing the condensation due to her lifestyle choices but there was insufficient evidence of the enquiries it had carried out. Its main consideration of the reported issues appears to have been regarding potential liability rather than exploring whether it had any further repair responsibilities to the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord gave proper consideration to the resident’s request for compensation, again giving undue weight to any perceived liability rather than investigating her concerns. It first advised her to submit a complaint before it would consider her request, before then declining to process the complaint and redirecting her to its insurance team. It should have clarified if the resident’s request for compensation was separate to her claim for damaged goods and there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord did not treat the resident fairly through its failure to investigate and respond to her complaint. It changed its position after originally accepting the complaint and did not provide the resident with an appropriate explanation as to why it did so. It did not act in accordance with its own complaints policy and its communication with the resident was inconsistent. After providing an initial response to this Service, it failed to reply to repeated requests for it to provide the resident with a complaint response, contrary to its obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £1000 compensation, consisting of:
1. £350 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
2. £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider the resident’s request for compensation.
3. £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the multiple failings in its complaint handling.
The landlord should also contact the resident to apologise for the failings in this case.
The landlord should contact this Service to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The Ombudsman’s investigation has identified significant concerns around:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. Its approach to managing the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
3. Its complaint handling.
Given the number of issues identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to review the outcomes of this investigation and produce an action plan to ensure that learning from this complaint is used to improve its service to other residents. This action plan should include consideration of the following areas:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. The landlord’s approach to damp and mould issues, including a self-assessment against the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It should give particular consideration to its communication with residents regarding damp and mould reports, and the advice it provides.
3. The landlord’s communication with residents regarding damp and mould issues and the advice it provides residents.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling, including its approach to complaints which may also involve insurance claims (Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues (housing-ombudsman.org.uk))
The landlord should share a copy of its action plan following this review with the Ombudsman within three months of the date of this determination.