Derby Homes Limited (202206945)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206945

Derby Homes Limited

11 February 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident has vulnerabilities which he has stated were impacted by the ongoing mould issues within the property.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of mould on 2 March 2021, the landlord completed two mould washes in the property. Following further reports in October 2021, the landlord carried out a third mould wash on 7 February 2022. In March 2022, a surveyor inspected the property and raised works for extractor fans and air vents to be installed, and for further mould washes to take place. The resident continued to chase the repairs, as he believed the issues were impacting his health and on 8 June 2022, the landlord raised works for Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) to be installed.
  3. On 4 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint due to the length of time he had been living with damp and mould in the property, which continued to return despite mould washes being completed. He was also dissatisfied with the damage to his clothes and furniture, which he stated was caused by the mould.
  4. On 11 July 2022, the landlord inspected the property and acknowledged that the mould was returning, and repairs were still outstanding. In addition, it asked the resident to provide documentation relating to any damaged items.
  5. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 August 2022. It confirmed that the outstanding works would be completed by 15 August 2022. It added that the resident had not provided any documentation for damaged items, which included; a coat, seven pairs of jeans, a wardrobe and sundry pots and pans. However, it provided £250 compensation as a gesture of goodwill towards it, which would be credited to his rent account. It informed the resident that he needed to heat and ventilate the property correctly, but that it would refer him to a money and energy advice team. It also stated that it would continue looking into his requirements for moving. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress, and provided the resident with £50 compensation for the delays in appointments.
  6. On 15 August 2022, wall mounted heaters and fans were fitted in the resident’s property. In September 2022, the resident stated that the mould was ruining his belongings. The landlord advised him to continue wiping down and treating the mould, and stated that the newly installed ventilation should help to prevent the mould from reoccurring. The resident later reported further damage to his belongings, such as; a mirror and his sofa.
  7. The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service. He was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, as he stated it would not cover the losses of his belongings. He added that the mould had affected his health, which he is receiving medical treatment for. The resident is seeking £5000 compensation, and to be re-housed into a suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident informed the landlord on 24 October 2022, that he was also seeking to be compensated for the damage to his sofa, and the impact on his mental and physical health. The landlord stated that the damaged sofa had not been previously mentioned within the resident’s complaint, and was therefore a separate issue, which was reasonable. Due to this, it is not a matter that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident first.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will normally be attended to within two hours, urgent repairs will be attended to within 24 hours to five days, and non-urgent and routine repairs will normally be resolved within five weeks, but may take up to 12 weeks if specialist equipment is needed. The tenancy agreement states that residents must provide access for works to take place.
  2. The ‘Damp, Mould and Condensation advice’ on the landlord’s website states that resident’s should report concerns of damp and mould as soon as possible, and that it would send someone to inspect the property, wash and treat walls where appropriate and provide aftercare advice to prevent it from reoccurring.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in his property.

  1. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident’. It highlights the importance of landlords taking reasonable steps in partnership with residents in circumstances where condensation is the main cause of the damp and mould, such as considering additional ventilation. In this case, it is evident that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously when he initially reported the damp and mould in March 2021, as it inspected the property and completed mould washes for the resident on 23 March 2021 and 5 May 2021.
  2. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. The timeframe for the damp and mould to be fully resolved in this case would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
  3. However, it is not disputed that the resident experienced delays in the landlord’s service. As per the landlord’s repairs policy, non-urgent and routine repairs will normally be resolved within five weeks. In this case, following the treatment of the mould in May 2021, the resident reported that the mould continued to come back in October 2021. The landlord informed this Service that a further mould wash and the application of fungal paint in the property is due to take place on 21 February 2023, and therefore the issue appears to be ongoing.
  4. The landlord did attend on several occasions to treat the mould in the property, and initially responded within the appropriate timeframes listed in its repairs policy. After receiving the reports in October 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by raising an inspection of the property, for a further mould wash to take place and for the kitchen units being impacted by the damp and mould to be assessed. However, these works did not take place until 7 February 2022. Where there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected completion date in order to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations. From the evidence provided, it is not wholly clear whether the landlord communicated with the resident during this period, which is evidence of poor communication on its behalf.
  5.  Due to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould, it was appropriate for the landlord to organise for a damp and mould survey to take place. The survey took place on 15 March 2022, where the surveyor identified that the cause was condensation and recommended works. From the evidence provided, there was no progress in the works until 11 July 2022, when the landlord and a surveyor inspected the property again. It is not clear what caused the delay, but it resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident due to his concerns about how the mould was impacting his health, and the lack of communication from the landlord exacerbated the impact.
  6. The works were then completed on 15 August 2022. Between 15 March 2022, when the works were first raised and 15 August 2022, when the ventilation was installed, the landlord provided the resident with an update on 14 July 2022, and visited the property on 4 August 2022. Although it is unclear why the delay occurred, this is evidence that the landlord was trying to manage the resident’s expectations more appropriately. In addition, throughout this period, it had informed the resident of the importance of continuing to heat and ventilate the property sufficiently.
  7. When considering the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) mentioned previously, it was appropriate for the landlord to install the further ventilation. It also continued to work with the resident to try and find an appropriate solution. In November 2022, it carried out a survey of the damp proof course, which was found to be in good condition, and the report stated that the ventilation installed in the property was appropriate. Therefore, the surveyor provided the resident with recommendations to improve the balance in the property between moisture generation and temperature.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord installed a HomeLink system in the resident’s property on 13 January 2023, which has; environmental sensors, electricity monitors and smart smoke alarms to assist the resident in improving energy consumption and air quality. It also agreed to complete further mould washes and to apply anti-fungicidal paint in the property. This shows that the landlord understood the resident’s concerns, and was actively trying to resolve the issues whilst minimising the impact on the resident. In addition, it referred the resident to a Housing Aid association and a money and energy advice team for support.
  9. Throughout the landlord’s treatment of the mould, the resident raised concerns about missed appointments, where he stated he was in the property, but contractors posted missed appointment cards. Although the landlord stated that this was difficult to prove, it did advise the resident that there was a time where the buzzer system of the property was not working, and contractors may not have been aware. It also stated that it had provided feedback to its contractors, which is evidence of it trying to improve its service and learn from mistakes. Likewise, there have been occasions where the landlords staff were unable to gain access to the property, such as in January 2023, where it tried to complete the mould works and apply anti-fungicidal paint.  It should be noted that as per the tenancy agreement, the resident is obligated to provide access for works.
  10. The resident had also raised concerns about the damages caused by the damp and mould. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it appropriately considered the resident’s reports and requested documentation for the damaged items, which the resident did not provide. The landlord would not be obligated to compensate the resident for damages without documentation, and therefore its decision to provide a goodwill gesture towards the damage was more than reasonable.
  11. Due to the damp and mould in the property, the resident requested to move on several occasions, such as; on 3 May 2022, 23 August 2022 and 25 October 2022, due to the impact on his health. The landlord recognised this was causing distress for the resident and although it stated the resident was not eligible for emergency accommodation, it assisted him in completing an application to move, which included any medical needs, so that he was able to bid on properties.
  12. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move, who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with his request to transfer from the current property.
  13. Ultimately, following the resident’s initial reports in March 2021, the landlord continued to work with the resident to find an appropriate solution, and assist him in preventing the return of the mould. It clearly considered how it could improve the property for the resident, by installing ventilation and the HomeLink system. In addition, it appropriately identified on 14 July 2022 that the resident had experienced delays in its service, which had caused inconvenience and distress.
  14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging where its service had been less than it should have. It tried to put things right by apologising to the resident for the delays, and offering him compensation of £300, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. However, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £300 compensation it had offered previously, if it has not already been paid, as this is the basis for the Ombudsman’s finding.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £300 previously offered if it has not already been paid.
    2. Continue to support the resident with his application to move properties.