East End Homes Limited (202306045)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306045
East End Homes Limited
27 September 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 response to:
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the property concerned has 1-bedroom.
- Between February 2022 and December 2022, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property several times to carry out repairs for damp and mould in the bedroom, living room, hallway, and bathroom. This included mould treatments, stain blocking, and replacing the bathroom extractor fan.
- On 11 January 2023 the resident complained that the treatment of mould in his bedroom and living room had been “significantly delayed” after he reported it in mid-November 2022. He was also unhappy that mould had returned within a few days of it being treated and suggested it had not been done properly. The resident asked for the mould to be treated as soon as possible.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response from 25 January 2023 said that it identified no failings in its handling of the mould treatment. It explained that this was because its Technical Officer had inspected the property in early December 2022 and raised works to clean the mould, which its contractors subsequently did. However, it said it was unusual for mould to return so quickly. The landlord advised that it was condensation from the resident’s lifestyle, such as the positioning of his furniture and insufficient heating, which had caused this and advised on changes he could make to improve the situation.
- The resident asked to escalate the complaint to the landlord’s stage 2 which involved a panel review. He said that the landlord had not dealt with the mould effectively since it was originally reported in February 2022 and the contractor did not properly treat the mould in December 2022. He also claimed that the mould had damaged his health and belongings, for which he asked to be compensated.
- Rather than refer the complaint to the panel, the landlord provided a further response on 22 February 2023. It disagreed that they had failed to respond to the resident’s reports of mould in February 2022 and set out the actions it had taken to address the problem over the previous year. However, it did acknowledge a failure to complete the mould treatment within its required timescales. The landlord explained that there were a number of factors that had contributed to the damp and mould problem, including its failure to treat the mould and the resident’s lifestyle. In resolution, it said the treatment would be completed the following week, it would act on recommendations from a specialist to instal a ventilation system. It also offered him £200 in compensation. This included a contribution towards the resident’s cleaning costs.
- The resident asked to escalate his complaint in late February 2023 because he was unhappy that the landlord had not taken full accountability for the mould problem. He later added that he believed the repair logs showed a pattern of recurrent mould arising from poor ventilation. The resident provided a list of damaged belongings and asked to be compensated for them and for the impact on his health.
- After meeting with the resident, the landlord confirmed its decision in writing on 2 June 2023, that it agreed with the findings of the initial investigation. It advised that since mould treatment had been applied and a ventilation system installed, no reports of a reoccurrence had been made until the panel meeting in late May 2023. It said that, consequently, an inspection was carried out where a small amount of mould and condensation was found, which was likely caused by the ventilation system being turned off. The landlord reiterated apologies for the delays in completing the mould treatment and increased its offer of compensation by £50.
- According to the resident, he contacted environmental health earlier this year about an ongoing mould problem, although no records of this have been provided. He also stated he was potentially seeking damages through a legal claim.
- The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. He said the damp and mould affected his health and damaged many belongings. The resident advised that he seeks compensation that reflects the overall impact on him.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has explained to this Service that his breathing has been affected from living with damp and mould for an extended period. It is though outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s health. Matters of liability for personal injury are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Rather, consideration has been given to the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings on the part of the landlord.
Response to damp and mould
- According to the landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy (damp policy), it aims to carry out effective investigations into the cause of damp and complete repairs to prevent it from reoccurring. It also states it “will undertake reasonable improvement works required to assist in the management and control of condensation damp”. Residents are advised in the damp policy of their responsibility to reduce condensation in a property through keeping it adequately ventilated and heated. Where belongings are concerned, it advises a tenant should “[c]lean mould from clothes, fabrics, carpets, and furnishings etc.” The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
- Mould was reported to be a problem in February 2022, initially affecting a few rooms, and from April 2022 it was reported to be affecting just the bathroom. The repair logs suggest that the landlord likely determined the problem to be from the bathroom extractor fan because the works included replacing it. Most repairs raised appear to have been completed within the landlord’s routine timescales. These also appear to have been effective in dealing with the mould, at least until the resident reported the problem again in mid-November 2022.
- The available repair logs show that an inspection of the property was carried out on 7 December 2022, which the landlord advised in its responses was by one of its Technical Operatives. They subsequently raised works to clean mould from the bedroom, living room, and kitchen, mainly around the windows. The contractors attended on 22 December 2022 and reported to have partially completed the work.
- In the stage 1 response from late January 2023, the landlord said it disagreed with the resident’s view that there were failings in its handling of his most recent reports. It said it had “acted appropriately and within [its] procedures” in inspecting and treating the mould in December 2022. This was clearly wrong because its contractor had not completed the required works.
- In the landlord’s review of its initial response in February 2023, it changed its position and acknowledged that the mould had not been fully treated. It is unclear why the landlord did not arrive at this decision in its original response. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge a delay in treating the mould, which records show was completed on 24 February 2023. This means it took almost double the time the repairs policy states it would and, more importantly, increased the time the resident was living with mould.
- Where the landlord identifies service failures, its complaints policy states it should take action to put matters right depending on the extent of and level of impact to the resident. These include apologising, providing explanations, taking a specific action (such as a repair), and compensation. The actions and approach are in line with the Ombudsman’s own Guidance on Remedies and The Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- The landlord accepted some responsibility for the mould not being resolved because of its failure to complete the required treatment. It advised, however, that there were a number of factors contributing to the damp and mould problem, including the way the resident was living in the property. The landlord referred to the findings of its Technical Officer, largely quoted in the initial complaint response, that the placement of the resident’s furniture could be affecting the efficiency of the heating system and that the vents on the windows were found to be closed. It stated that it would be acting on the recommendations from a ventilation survey, which the evidence shows was carried out on 14 February 2023.
- The recommendations from the ventilation specialist included replacing the extractor fan in the kitchen, which was found not to be compliant with building regulations. They also suggested installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) system, because it was designed to run continuously and was not then dependent on the resident choosing to use it. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to comment on the reasonableness of any technical findings. However, it is clear the landlord sought input both from its own technical officer and an external contractor, and it is apparent from their findings that the mould was not caused by one issue, as the landlord had advised.
- As well as saying his breathing was being affected by mould, the resident said his clothing and furniture was damaged, some of which he provided photographs of. He advised that some items had been thrown away and others had been professionally cleaned, which he had incurred costs in doing. In response, the landlord said it encouraged residents to take out contents insurance to cover their personal belongings. Its response was in line with the approach set out in its compensation policy. However, best practice is for landlords to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer in cases where someone alleges it is responsible for damage to them or their belongings. The landlord did though offer an ex-gratia contribution of £150 toward the costs of cleaning, and a payment of £50 for the inconvenience. This was a reasonable position to take, in view of both its compensation policy and damp policy, which state that a resident is responsible for claiming for and cleaning their belongings. Generally, the landlord made a reasonable attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint, in line with its own policies and the Ombudsman’s guidance.
- The main reason for the resident escalating his complaint in late February 2023 was because he believed the landlord was entirely responsible for the mould problem. He later provided a list of his belongings with estimated costs that he was asking to be reimbursed for. He also said he wanted compensation for the length of time it had taken to resolve the damp and mould problem, which he said was due to poor ventilation in the property.
- The panel met with the resident on 23 May 2023, although no notes or minutes were provided from this meeting. According to the landlord’s final response, issued over a week later, the panel agreed with the original decision that there were delays in applying the mould treatment. It did not though directly address the resident’s allegations that the landlord was solely responsible for the problem. The Code requires that complaint responses should be clear and reasons for decisions explained at all stages. The landlord’s response then fell short of the standards of the Code. However, as the landlord made it reasonably clear that it agreed with the findings explained in the previous response, which did provide a position on the resident’s complaint that the landlord was fully responsible, the threshold for a service failing has not been met.
- According to the available records, the resident reported at the panel meeting that damp and mould was still a problem. The following day, 2 of the landlord’s operatives inspected the property and reported their findings to the panel, which this Service has seen. These were also referenced in the landlord’s final response. The operatives reported that there were minor traces of condensation in the bathroom and kitchen, but no significant damp or mould was seen or registered on a damp meter. They also reported finding that the PIV system was turned off. The landlord advised the resident, as it had done in its earlier responses, of the need to keep the property ventilated. This advice was reasonable because the landlord’s damp policy requires residents to be vigilant in reducing condensation through airing a property.
- The resident advised this Service that damp and mould are apparently still a problem, particularly in his kitchen. He indicated that this is because the landlord has not addressed the root cause of the problem. This must be frustrating. Based on the Ombudsman’s assessment of the available evidence, nothing in the records indicate that the damage to the resident’s clothes can be linked solely to any specific action, or lack of, on the part of the landlord. Rather, the evidence supports the landlord’s decision that there were a number of causes of the problem. Importantly, the landlord met its obligations under the tenancy agreement to maintain and repair the property by treating the mould and carrying out works to address what was causing it. The resident has also not disagreed with or provided any evidence that undermines the landlord’s finding that he was not using the PIV at its last visit.
- As well as reiterating the acknowledgement and apology given in its previous response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £250. This amount was within the range that the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends, which the landlord’s compensation policy said it aimed to follow, in cases where failings have caused distress and inconvenience but is not expected to be lasting. For this reason, no further compensation will be ordered.
Associated complaint
- As mentioned earlier in this report, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. It therefore technically created a third stage for the resident in issuing a review of the stage 1 response. Had the landlord followed its process, its second response dated 22 February 2023 should have been its final response and would have allowed the resident to access this Service. Not doing this protracted the complaints process and added an unnecessary step, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
- The complaints process was further delayed because the landlord did not meet its timescale for issuing stage 2 responses within 20-working days. In total the final response was delayed by over 3 months. The reason it took so long is unknown because nothing in the records provided explains it.
- As the landlord has failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failure, it has also not taken any actions to put right the impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to put this right with an apology and compensation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- The landlord is to:
- Apologise to the resident for the failure to follow its complaints process and the delay this caused.
- Pay the resident £75 for the inconvenience.
- The landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.
Recommendations
- If the compensation of £250 has not been paid to the resident, the landlord should reoffer it as this recognised the genuine aspects of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
- The landlord should offer to provide the resident details of its liability insurer.
- The landlord is encouraged to reflect on and learn from the reason for the delay in completing the mould treatment.