ForHousing Limited (202102396)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102396

ForHousing Limited

11 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and completed a mutual exchange on 18 December 2020.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2021. She thought the landlord was aware of long-standing issues with the property resulting from “poor installation of solar panels” and “poorly installed cavity wall insulation.” She said at the time of the exchange, she was informed that a leak from the solar panel installation had been repaired and the loft would be reinsulated in January 2021, but she had not been contacted regarding an appointment. She said there was widespread mould in the property that she had to continuously clean, particularly in one of the bedrooms. She said that while she understood a full inspection of the property was not possible prior to the mutual exchange, due to government restrictions, she still felt the landlord had a responsibility as the issues were impacting her family’s health. She asked for a meeting to discuss the issues.
  3. A damp inspection took place on 12 February 2021. The landlord was not able to provide us with a readable copy of the inspection report, so we do not know what its findings or recommendations were.
  4. A work order was raised on 15 February 2021 to inspect the loft space insulation and remove old insulation. The repair records state a contractor attended on 1 March 2021 but could not gain access to the property. The landlord left the resident two voicemails, and the following day sent a letter explaining it was unable to gain access to the property.
  5. The resident called the landlord and raised a complaint on 5 March 2021. She disputed that the contractor tried to contact her prior to sending the no access letter, and said the repairs to the roof and inspection to the loft space were still outstanding.
  6. A contractor attended the property on 9 March 2021 to assess previously reported bathroom leaks. A follow-on job was raised to resolve the mould issue. The contractor noted the resident said mould had penetrated the bathroom walls and she had asked for the whole bathroom to be replaced and have a bath installed instead of the shower cubicle.
  7. The repair records state a contractor attended on 12 March 2021. The resident later said that the leaks were resolved at the appointment. Follow-on work was raised as there was damp throughout the property and the loft had insufficient insulation.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 March 2021 and asked whether the scheduled appointment would be a full day. She also asked for confirmation that the loft space and roof soffits (part of the loft structure) would be cleaned after the old insulation was removed, and whether another job would be raised to reinsulate the loft space as it would need time to dry first. The landlord responded the same day. It said the morning slot would be enough time to complete the planned work. It said the contractors would clean the area if needed but as the leak had been resolved, the area would dry out.
  9. The landlord’s repair records note on 30 March 2021 the resident did not want the works to be completed as the contractors were not planning to remove the old insulation. Rather, they planned to put a new layer on top of it.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 April 2021. She said she had increased concerns regarding the issues she originally raised on 24 January 2021, and thought the property was uninhabitable. She said that during the appointment on 30 March 2021 the contractor said he would not enter the loft as he suspected the insulation was made of asbestos.
  11. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2021 and said as it had been unable to resolve the complaint, it had been escalated “to the Investigation Stage of our complaints process”. It aimed to respond by 28th April 2021. 
  12. A work order was raised on 26 April 2021 to remove the old wet insulation and renew it.
  13. This Service contacted the landlord on 29 April 2021, asking it to issue its complaint response, following communication from the resident.
  14. The asbestos surveyor emailed the landlord on 30 April 2021 and stated he could not access the loft due to “stored items”. He said the building information stated the insulation was “Modern mineral fibre insulation” and no samples were taken from the loft as it was not deemed to be suspicious. He said the contractors could proceed with removal of the loft insulation.
  15. The building surveyor emailed the landlord on 2 May 2021 and explained the findings of the inspection on 30 April 2021. The surveyor had informed the resident the insulation was not asbestos, and she was happy for works to proceed. He stated “the insulation is not to in a good condition and is a major cause to the condensation and mould issues upstairs” and said mould treatment was required. He had suggested extra ventilation to be added to the property, but the resident had declined. At the resident’s request, he had requested a bath installation because she did not think the bathroom conditions met the housing specification, as it was installed by the previous occupant. He noted the resident said she would be happy to close the complaint once the suggested works had been completed and an appointment date of 12 May 2021 had been agreed.
  16. Following the inspection, the resident emailed the landlord on 3 May 2021. She explained her understanding of the works and said she was concerned that they could not be completed in one day as scheduled, and that further works needed to be completed. She was dissatisfied that the landlord was not testing the content of the loft for asbestos. She asked for “a representative with the relevant qualifications and authorisation to progress the work required”.
  17. The surveyor emailed the landlord on 4 May 2021, in response to the resident’s concerns raised about the proposed works. He said an appointment had been booked to replace the old insulation on 12 May 2021, which was a realistic timeframe. He reiterated the findings regarding asbestos and said he had told the resident it could be tested prior to the works if she wanted, but she was happy to proceed. He acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding additional works being required but said the insulation issue had to be resolved prior to any remedial works, as it was the cause of the mould.
  18. The resident raised further concerns regarding the planned works, and the landlord noted it called her prior to the appointment (it is unclear what date this was). It said she agreed for the works to be completed, with the attendance of a project manager to ensure her of the safety of the works. The resident confirmed that she was happy to continue without an asbestos test.
  19. According to the landlord’s repair records, on 12 May 2021, the contractors called the resident prior to arriving to renew the loft installation and she “refused the work” due to her asbestos concerns.
  20. The landlord sent its stage one response on 13 May 2021. It apologised for the delayed response and said it tried to complete the repairs prior to issuing its response, which it said the resident was aware of. It reiterated the actions it had taken and the proposed works. It advised that due to government restrictions, at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange, it was not completing inspections, and she had signed a disclaimer to confirm her knowledge of this. It said the replacement of the tiling and the installation of a bath had been approved and would be completed once the loft insulation had been replaced. It explained how she could request a complaint review by a panel. The same day the resident requested a panel meeting.
  21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 20 May 2021 and advised her the panel meeting would take place on 27 May 2021. The landlord noted the delay was due to waiting for confirmation of the resident’s availability for the meeting.
  22. The landlord sent its stage two response on 21 June 2021. It said the panel felt the landlord’s handling of the repairs was fair and appropriate, including “approval for the shower to be replaced by a bath as a gesture of good”. The panel recommended that the resident should allow the contractor to “remove the old loft insulation, clean the loft and replace with new insulation in order that the remaining internal works can then be arranged”. It said the loft space would be cleaned thoroughly prior to new insulation being installed but it would not treat the loft or clean the soffits as the loft was not a habitable room. It recommended that the resident reconsidered ventilation. It signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  23. The repair records state that work to clear, hoover and renew the loft insulation and treat the roof and ceiling timbers with wood treatment was completed on 6 August 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s website states:
    1. “We’ll aim to complete 90% of all damp repairs within 40 days, allowing space for those longer-term solutions”.
    2. “We’ll arrange an inspection for all reported cases of damp and will carry these out within 10 days of being reported, but aim to be with you sooner”.
    3. To support with damp and mould it will “Inspect the loft area to ensure the insulation is dry, sufficient and covers all areas”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states urgent repairs will be completed in three working days, routine repairs in ten working days and planned repairs in 21 working days.
  3. The landlord’s asbestos policy states asbestos surveys will be completed by surveyors with appropriate qualifications.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. It will initially try and agree an appropriate remedy with the resident within two working days. The resident will have a single point of contact until the complaint is resolved or it has been escalated to investigation.
    2. It will acknowledge a stage one complaint in two working days and issue a response within ten working days.
    3. In a stage two complaint, it will establish whether the complaint requires a complaints panel within two working days. The resident will be informed of the panel date within 21 working days. The resident will be informed of the outcome of the panel within five working days.
  5. In a mutual exchange, the resident is responsible for inspecting the property and ensuring that they are happy to move in, in the property’s current condition. The landlord explained to the resident that due to coronavirus restrictions, it was unable to inspect the property prior to her moving in, and she signed a disclaimer stating she was aware of this. However, once the resident’s tenancy began, the landlord was responsible for addressing any of the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s condition. In accordance with its policies, the landlord is responsible for inspecting the causes of damp and mould and carrying out repair works if it is determined to have a structural cause, such as insufficient loft insulation, as is the case here.
  6. The landlord’s policy states that damp and mould repairs should be completed within 40 days. The landlord initially responded in line with its policies by promptly completing a damp survey and raising relevant follow-on work. The first appointment to complete repairs was scheduled for 1 March 2021, but the landlord could not gain access. Further delays were incurred on 30 March 2021 and 12 May 2021 due to the resident’s concerns about the scope and nature of some of the work. The decisions that the landlord made regarding those issues were based on the opinions of its contractors and surveyors. Nothing in the evidence indicates it was unreasonable for the landlord to do so. However, it was good practice for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and make adjustments where possible. The landlord offered to test the insulation for asbestos prior to starting the works and agreed to replace the insulation, rather than overlaying it. It also addressed her concerns with the bathroom mould and agreed to upgrade it, which it had no obligation to do. When it declined some of the resident’s requests, such as cleaning the soffits, it clearly explained why (i.e. the loft was not a habitable area). Overall, the total time taken to complete the damp and mould work was excessive (from January to August 2021) but the landlord appropriately managed the works and made changes to ensure that the resident was satisfied with them. In the circumstances of this complaint, no evidence has been seen which might indicate the time taken to complete the work was due to any clear failing or omission by the landlord.
  7. The landlord is expected to handle complaints in line with its complaint policy and timeframes. The resident initially complained about the repairs works on 5 March 2021 and the landlord then provided her with regular updates. When the resident was not satisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s intervention, the complaint was escalated to the investigation stage on 14 April 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one response on 13 May 2021. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a stage one response should be issued within ten working days. Although the landlord exceeded the timeframe, in its response it explained the delay was due to attempting to resolve the outstanding repair issues prior to issuing its response, which it said the resident was aware of. It also provided regular updates and addressed her concerns throughout this period. When the resident said she was dissatisfied with the stage one response, the landlord promptly escalated the complaint to stage two, arranged a panel meeting and issued the response within 18 working days of the meeting.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.