Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202221657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221657

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

31 January 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, boiler repairs, and its response to her associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy for a flat, which began in July 2020.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the boiler.
Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping the property in repair, which includes keeping it free from damp and mould.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out its approach to cases of damp and mould, including the following details:
1. Within 10 working days of receiving a report of damp or mould, it will investigate, clean away the mould, take damp readings of the wall and floor, take humidity readings of the rooms, and check there is appropriate ventilation in the kitchen and bathrooms;
2. If the issue is not resolved at the first visit, a member of staff will be appointed as a point of contact for the resident until it is resolved.

Summary of events

In November 2020 the resident reported a problem with the boiler pressure. The landlord’s contractor replaced the room thermostat, set the timer on the boiler and provided some advice to the resident.
In December 2020 the resident reported mould in one of the bedrooms, on the bed and a chest of drawers. She explained to the landlord that she used condensation boxes, and they filled up quickly. She had observed that someone had drilled a hole in the external wall of the building the previous day, and asked the landlord what its plans were.
In its response to the resident, on 22 December 2020, the landlord asked her to follow the advice and guidance it had provided in a leaflet on damp and mould, for four weeks. It said it would investigate the issue if the problem was not resolved by this. It added that the person who drilled the hole may well have been from its assets team, and the matter was likely in hand.
On 20 January 2021 the resident told the landlord the damp problem was ongoing. Over the next two days, she sent the landlord photos which she said showed mould on the carpet and a wall. The landlord referred the case to its damp team.
In April 2021 the landlord’s contractor topped up the boiler pressure, and on 28 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would attend on 17 May 2021 to assess the building for cavity wall insulation.
On 8 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it for an update on the insulation. On 30 July 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the damp and mould, and explained that she had been told that the skirting boards were rotten in the wet room, the extractor fan needed replacement, and the pipework needed boxing in. She noted that the carpet grippers had gone rusty (which she attributed to damp), and said she would need to replace belongings due to mould. She believed the moisture in the wet room was contributing significantly to the damp in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 August 2021, and explained that there was more mould on her belongings, including in her bedroom. She explained she was experiencing headaches and felt ill, which she attributed to the property condition. The landlord responded the same day, and apologised for the delay in responding to her email of 30 July 2021. It explained it was dealing with a high volume of emails and that a manager of the relevant team would be in touch with her.
The resident chased a response again on 2 September 2021, and on 30 September 2021 she expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of action from the landlord. She explained that there was mould on her daughter’s bed, and every room in the property was affected by mould.
The resident chased the landlord again on 6 October 2021, and the next day the landlord advised her it would be in touch to arrange a survey. The landlord’s records suggest that the survey took place on or before 2 December 2021.
The resident chased an update from the landlord in early December 2021, and again in early January 2022. On 17 January 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident and advised that it would extract and refill the insulation in the wall cavities of the building. It confirmed this again to her on 27 January 2022.
The landlord’s contractor topped up the pressure to the boiler again on 20 January 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord in March 2022, and requested permission to make some alterations to the property. In her request, she said that the skirting boards in one of the bedrooms were rotting due to the damp, and highlighted again that the carpet grip was discolouring the carpet.
The resident reported a leak from the boiler on 6 April 2022, and the next day the landlord’s contractor attended, replaced the room thermostat and put sealant around the area it thought the leak may have come from. On 4 May 2022 the resident again reported a leak from the boiler, and its contractor attended the same day. It recommended that the pressure sensor was replaced, which was completed the following day, along with the divertor assembly. The next day, 6 May 2022, the resident reported another leak and the contractor attended and repaired a leak from under the boiler.
On 25 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the new insulation had been in place for a ‘few weeks’, but the problems with mould and damp were ongoing. She told it she was using a dehumidifier on a daily basis, and needed to replaced the carpet.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to this contact on 2 October 2022, and advised it she had redecorated, replaced the skirting boards, and the newly decorated rooms were again getting mouldy. She told the landlord the condition of the property was “unacceptable”, and that she believed there was rising damp because she could see damp coming up the walls from the floor.
The resident reported a further leak from the boiler on 24 and 25 October 2022, which the landlord’s contractor attended on 27 October 2022. It noted that the boiler had been repaired several timed that year, and replaced the flow isolator.
On 20 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord, and said she had not received a response to her previous three emails regarding the damp and mould in the property. She said her family should not have to live with the conditions, the windows were full of condensation, the walls were wet/ damp to the touch and their clothes were getting mouldy, “yet no-one does anything”.
The resident reported another leak from the boiler on 2 December 2022, and the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out a repair (tightening a loose nut on the filling system) on 6 December 2022.
The landlord’s records show that it acknowledged a stage 1 complaint on 6 December 2022, and issued a response to the resident on 21 December 2022. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for “any lack” of communication on its part, and “any” distress or inconvenience caused to the resident. It confirmed that it had booked an appointment for a damp and mould survey on 4 January 2023 In addition, it advised that it had recently made changes to its damp and mould procedure, to improve its service.
The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on 6 January 2023, which she attributed to the boiler. The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 January 2023, changed the fuse, and confirmed the boiler was working before it left.
On 12 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the repair works related to damp and mould. She said she had been told a new ventilation system would be installed and had asked for an inspection of the windows, but had heard nothing “for months”. The landlord replied, and told the resident the matter had been escalated to a manager, and it would let her know when it had an update.
On 29 May 2023 the resident chased the update, and reiterated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions and lack of communication with her. She asked for an urgent reply and resolution of the issues, or advice on how she could request to move.
The next day, 30 May 2023, the landlord confirmed it had logged a stage 1 complaint and would formally respond within 10 working days. The complaint handler left the resident a message on 1 June 2023 to advise they were investigating the matters she raised. After the resident chased an update on 7 June 2023, the landlord sent her a formal complaint acknowledgement, and advised her it would respond within 10 working days.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord requested an extension of this deadline to 27 June 2023, and explained to the resident:
1. It was waiting for information on the windows;
2. Its surveyor had advised that a “ventilation issue” had been identified at the resident’s building, and it was currently consulting its contractors about how it could improve the air flow in the properties. It said this might involve further tests and investigations, and so it was not in a position to provide “a definite answer” as to what solution would be agreed. It said it would instead put in writing the works already carried out and how it was working towards a solution;
3. It could arrange for someone to call her if she wanted to discuss her request to transfer.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 June 2023. It:
1. Advised it had installed new ventilation in 2021, but its surveyor had confirmed that mould had reoccurred. It was considering alternative solutions, and proposed installing a positive input ventilation system on a trial basis, to see if it improved the situation. It advised the resident this would be installed within the next 4 weeks;
2. Advised that it would carry out works to the windows in the financial year 2024-5;
3. Confirmed it had booked a repair for the flooring.
The resident updated the landlord the same day, to advise that its contractor had booked an appointment for 7 July 2023 to carry out an assessment for the ventilation system, and the installation was booked for 28 July 2023. The resident asked the landlord if it would arrange plastering works (to the areas damaged by the damp/ mould and associated repairs) after this.
On 24 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, confirmed the ventilation system had been installed, reported that her belongings were still going mouldy, and asked it how she could make a claim for this.
The resident chased a response from the landlord on 20 September 2023. She said she had done everything the landlord asked her to, in terms of cleaning and ventilation, and expressed frustration that she was again having to report damp and mould. She reminded the landlord she was still waiting for a response regarding her claim for reimbursement of the costs of getting her belongings professionally cleaned. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint as a result.
The landlord agreed with the resident that it would extend the 10 day deadline for a complaint response, to allow time for investigations, on 2 October 2023. The landlord’s internal communications show that it recognised it had been aware of issues with damp and mould in the resident’s property since March 2021. The ventilation system that had been installed had failed, and a replacement would shortly be installed. It understood that the resident believed the damp to be caused by:
1. Unheated and uninsulated walls and roof space in the communal area of the building, which the affected bedrooms backed on to;
2. Windows in need of replacement, due to the rubber having perished;
3. Moisture coming up through the floors and walls;
4. Water ingress from the property above, due to a historic leak;
5. The laminate floors were lifting and the skirting boards rotting.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 October 2023 and reassured her that it was looking into the matter, and would contact her again the next week. On 19 October 2023 the resident sent the landlord some photos that she said showed mould, and the areas affected by damp. The landlord asked the resident for a further extension to the complaint response deadline, while it looked into the issues.
On 6 November 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord that its contractor had carried out a damp inspection that day, and had advised her to urgently contact the landlord to discuss that the ventilation system that had recently been installed was in fact adding to the ongoing damp and mould. She said the contractor had told her this should be immediately switched off, and this would require an electrician because there was no off switch for the resident to use.
On 22 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update, explained to the landlord the worry that she had been caused, and said she was waiting for its stage 1 complaint response as well as details of how to claim for the cost of her damaged belongings. She said she felt she was getting nowhere, and was sceptical as to whether installing air bricks, which had been suggested to her, would work.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 November 2023, in which it:
1. Said it had records of four attempts by the resident to raise the issues of damp and mould, the most recent in May of that year;
2. Said it had attempted to resolve the problem, including the installation of a positive input ventilation system;
3. Recognised the resident’s concern around the cost of running a dehumidifier;
4. Said that as part of its complaint investigation, it had referred the resident to its contractor on 23 October 2023, which had attended on 6 November 2023. The contractor recommended:
  1. The kitchen extractor fan should be repaired, this was scheduled for 24 November 2023;
  2. The ventilation system should be disconnected, this was scheduled for 24 November 2023;
  3. Air bricks should be installed in the front and rear walls of the property, to improve the natural ventilation. The landlord’s contractor would be in contact about this, and the resident could contact a named member of the landlord’s staff until the work was completed;
5. Apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response, and that the complaint investigator could not “influence” the resident’s transfer banding;
6. Explained that it anticipated the advice from its damp and mould contractor would improve the situation, and offered the resident £300 compensation;
7. Said the complaint investigator would check in with the resident on 23 January 2024.
The resident replied the same day, and said she would not accept the offer of £300 compensation, as it did not cover the costs she had paid for flooring, redecoration, her daughter’s mattress, their clothes and other belongings damaged by mould, running the dehumidifier, extra cleaning products, water collectors and running the ventilation system. She added that she would need to replace her own mattress, and both her own and her daughter’s beds. She explained she remained dissatisfied with the time taken to respond at stage 1 of the complaint, and with the fact that she had had to complain to get action from the landlord. She queried whether the damp proof course was an issue, as she said the surveyor had mentioned it several times to her. The landlord subsequently escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
On 28 November 2023 the resident told the landlord the damp reading, from the monitoring equipment its contractor had installed, was 65% in her daughter’s room.
On 14 December 2023 the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water to the landlord, and its contractor attended that day to reset the boiler. The next day it ordered a new flow sensor, and confirmed that the heating was on. On 16 December 2023 the resident reported that the heating and hot water had stopped again. On 18 December 2023 the contractor referred the matter to the landlord for consideration of replacing the boiler, noting that the boiler was 13 years old, in “poor” overall condition, and had been damaged by a leak, with rotting casing.
The landlord’s internal communications from 18 December 2023 show it recognised that damp and mould was “not just” affecting the resident’s property within her building, and its staff thought the best resolution would be to offer her somewhere else to live.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 December 2023. It:
1. Recognised the resident’s concerns with the damp and mould, its communication, the breakdown of the boiler and loss of heating and hot water, and her request for the problems to be solved or the landlord to move her to another property;
2. Concluded that it had “fallen well below any kind of acceptable standard in both its communication… and in tackling the issues”;
3. Said it had devoted “insufficient time, energy and co-ordinated action” to rectifying the problems in the property;
4. Said the complaint handler had identified the following resolutions:
  1. Replacement of the boiler as a priority;
  2. The landlord must find the cause of the damp and mould problem;
  3. The landlord must replaster the walls in the property;
  4. An immediate management move for the resident;
  5. £500 compensation to be paid to the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it was in communication with the resident regarding a mutual exchange during January 2024, and she moved in February 2024 as a result.
The landlord offered additional compensation to the resident after she reported mould damage to her wardrobes, clothes and shoes while packing her belongings. It offered her £500 to help towards the costs of the damage, and £300 towards the decoration of her new property, making its total offer of compensation £1,300.
A report shared with us by the landlord from April 2024, containing data gathered by its contractor during the resident’s tenancy, confirmed high humidity during her occupation of the property, and reiterated the advice to the landlord that air bricks could help and that the positive input ventilation system appeared to have made things worse.
The landlord has confirmed to us that its contractors attended to inspect/ repair the boiler 15 times between 2022 and December 2023 when the recommendation for a new boiler was made.

Assessment and findings

We acknowledge the resident’s concern that whoever lived in the property after her would experience the same problems she had, if the landlord did not resolve the underlying causes of the damp and mould.
This investigation covers the events while the resident lived in the property only, as that is the period when the landlord’s responses had a direct impact on her. However, we recognise that it is important to the resident that the landlord takes learning from her experience, and this corresponds with our expectations as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In this case, it is clear that the resident waited an unreasonably long time for the landlord to take action to remedy the damp and mould, and experienced a high volume of boiler problems. It is understandable that she would feel frustrated by her experience.
The landlord should have been more proactive in logging a stage 1 complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its responses in 2021, and it should not have taken 3 stage 1 complaints before it recognised that it needed to look deeper into the matters she had repeatedly raised.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in December 2023 confirms that it had, by that time, recognised its service was not to an acceptable standard, and was determined to put things right for the resident. The internal communications the landlord has provided to us demonstrate that its staff took a similar, appropriately serious, approach to its failings and the priority of remedying them, at that time.
The landlord did take some mitigating action prior to the stage 2 complaint investigation, including the installation of new ventilation systems in 2021 and 2023. In our experience, eliminating damp may involve several steps while different potential solutions are tested. The landlord’s complaint response to the resident in June 2023 included a commitment to the resident that if the new positive input ventilation system was not successful, it would take further action.
While the number of boiler repairs was high, the landlord’s records do show that it arranged repairs when problems were reported to it. There is no requirement for the landlord to replace a boiler solely on the basis of age, but we observe that it was not until December 2023 (at the point the landlord was handling the resident’s stage 2 complaint) that the fact the boiler was 13 years old was referenced. We recommend that the landlord consider whether it could improve the way it uses data about repeat repairs, to ensure that it is aware of the older boilers it has in its stock, and is able to identify when the frequency with which they need repair is impacting its residents’ quiet enjoyment of their home.
Taking these mitigations into account, it is our opinion that the remedies the landlord identified in its stage 2 response in December 2023, including a transfer to a different property and a total of £1,300 compensation, were proportionate to the level of failings from the landlord.
The landlord’s intention to find a property for the resident to transfer to formed part of a reasonable resolution to the situation. The resident sourced a property to move to by mutual exchange before the landlord had identified a suitable property for her to transfer to. Given the speed with which this happened, we do not find fault on the landlord’s part here. The landlord demonstrated a continued commitment to resolving the complaint for the resident when it agreed to increase its offer of compensation to take into account damage she had found during the preparation for the move, and to put towards the redecoration of her new home.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s responses, in particular during the years 2021 and 2023 when it became clear that problems the resident reported had not been eliminated. Its stage 2 complaint response in December 2023 correctly identified that its communication with the resident should have been better, and its ultimate offer of compensation, as well as commitment to a transfer, were reasonable and appropriate remedies given the history of the resident’s complaint.
We observe that the resident raised specific concerns about costs she incurred due to the damp and mould, and while the landlord has made offers to the resident to address these, we recommend that it explain to her how she could submit a claim through its public liability insurance, should she wish to.
We also observe that the resident was sent information relating to the damp readings in the property after she had moved out. We recommend the landlord review whether it is still sharing this information with her, and whether this is still appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves her complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord consider whether it could improve the way it uses data about repeat repairs, to ensure that it is aware of the older boilers it has in its stock, and is able to identify when the frequency with which they need repair is impacting its residents’ quiet enjoyment of their home.
We recommend that the landlord explain to the resident how she could submit a claim through its public liability insurance, should she wish to.
We recommend that the landlord reviews whether it is still sharing information regarding the damp readings in the previous property with the resident, and whether this is still appropriate. We recommend it consider whether it could take steps to ensure information such as this is not shared with residents once they have moved out of a property.