Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202347029)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347029

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports about leaks, damp and mould.
    2. Response to the associated complaint.
    3. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroomed house. There are 5 adults and a young child living in the property of which 3 of the adults are registered disabled. The landlord is aware that resident is hard of hearing. She also suffers from depression and anxiety. The landlord is also aware that one of the resident’s sons and his father have borderline personality disorders; the other son has mental health problems.
  2. In January 2022 the resident reported mould on every upstairs ceiling apart from the hallway. She said she had been removing it regularly and had purchased some anti-mould paint, but she was not sure that would fix the problem. She said the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans both needed replacing as well. She also reported that water was getting into the brickwork in her daughters room which got worse when it rained.
  3. In early February 2022 the landlord overhauled the extractor fans at the property. At that time the resident reported external and internal cracks to the walls of the property. She said her daughter’s bedroom got very wet when it rained. She said this needed urgent attention.
  4. In April 2022 an inspection of the property was carried out. The recommendations included raking out all mortar joints and replace cracked and damaged bricks to the elevation. After 3 months the resident chased up these repairs.
  5. In early November 2022 the resident reported water leaking down the walls of two of the bedrooms. She said no repairs had been carried out following the inspection earlier that year. She said she had been given a date for a repair of 14 November for water coming through the brickwork above the front door but felt it should be treated more urgently because there were registered disabled people in the household and the leaks and mould were greatly affecting them.
  6. A further inspection was carried out on 9 November 2022 which identified several issues. The following recommendations were marked as ‘red’ which it noted should be completed within 0 to 3 months. These included repairs to the front door, treating the mould and mildew and assessing the leadwork to the chimney with a view to repairing or replacing it. The report also made amber’ recommendations (that should be completed within 3 to 6 months). These included the repointing of the brickwork in various areas to the exterior of the property.
  7. At the end of November 2022, the resident reported that the water ingress in her daughter’s bedroom was getting worse. She said the ceiling of that room now had several water patches and her son’s bedroom was still leaking in the corner. She said the front door was also getting worse. On 25 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of leaks.
  8. On 12 December 2022 the landlord undertook work to stop the leaks around the front door. The evidence suggests it replaced some bricks around the door at that time also.
  9. On 5 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said it had raised a job for anti-fungal treatment and its repairs team would be in touch with an appointment date. It said work had been raised with its roofing contractor to undertake work including to assess the leadwork to the chimney.
  10. The landlord said while it could be difficult to establish the root cause of damp and mould, this matter had been ongoing for too long and apologised for that. It said it now had a triage system in place to deal with any damp and mould issues and had put in place a better system to assist communication between its departments and contractors. The landlord offered compensation of £275 made up of £250 for inconvenience and £25 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
  11. On 6 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  12. Some 2 months later, the resident chased the stage 2 complaint response. In reply, the landlord asked her for a copy of the stage one response saying it did not have a copy on file.
  13. On 18 April 2023 the landlord confirmed a visit was booked to the property for the following day to complete a mould wash. It said an inspection of the roof and insulation would be completed also. The resident refused the mould wash as she had carried out her own treatment that had not resolved matters.
  14. Towards the end of May 2023, the resident chased up the repairs and the stage 2 complaint response. In early June 2023 the resident complained about workmen turning up unannounced. We understand this was in connection with the scaffolding that was put up at that time. The resident said in the future she would turn them away. She said this added stress to the household members who had very significant health problems.
  15. On 18 July 2023 the landlord carried out works to the chimney stack. Some roof tiles were also replaced at around that time also. On 23 July 2023 the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response and apologised for the delay in doing so. It said it had identified the cause of the leak as a repair required to the flashing, water tank and chimney. Those works had been scheduled for 21 July and 3 August 2023 and it would be contacting the resident shortly in relation to the remedial works to the chimney as scaffolding was required. The landlord said it would consider compensation on completion of these works.
  16. On 3 August 2023 the landlord installed flashing above the front door and repointed that area also. We understand that the roof was renewed in November 2023.
  17. The landlord provided the household with a dehumidifier in February 2024. Later that month there was a further inspection of the property. The main finding was damp and water ingress to the chimney breast and rear elevation of two first floor bedrooms. It said this appeared to be the result of poor detailing and should be investigated by a specialist roofing contractor or building surveyor. The evidence suggests the landlord has decided to temporarily move the family while unspecified repairs are undertaken.
  18. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she described the frustration and distress caused after she had mould washed and redecorated the property only for the mould to return. She said she had rejected the compensation previously offered. She said that the health of the household had been affected – itchiness, sneezing, eye infections as well as mental health problems. These physical symptoms went away when they were away from the property for a few days. The resident said she wanted the water ingress to stop, the place to be redecorated; not to be worried about contacting the landlord and for it to listen to her. She added that the landlord had not explained what repairs it planned to take to resolve matters.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This report has looked at events from January 2022– when the resident first made reports of mould in the property to August 2023 when repairs were completed following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of the previous month. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  2. The resident mentions that her health and that of her family have been affected by the events complained about. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, and we understand this has been a very difficult time for them. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can affect health, particularly for people with breathing difficulties. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident, and her family might have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as its response to the resident’s concerns about their health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair of, among other things, the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, walls, ceilings, window frames and outside doors. This reflects the obligations in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The tenant’s handbook says that it will respond to emergency repairs (which puts the health, safety or security of a resident at immediate risk, or which affects the structure of the building, such as a severely leaking roof). It says that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the reports of a water ingress, damp and mould was not appropriate. When the resident first reported mould at the start of 2022, the landlord overhauled the extractor fans which was a reasonable step to take. However, when the resident reported water ingress it took over 2 months for the landlord to inspect the property despite telling the resident her concerns had been passed to its repairs team “for urgent action”. The time taken was a failing. Landlords should respond promptly to such reports to ensure an early diagnosis of the problem.
  4. The landlord took no action on the recommendations made as a result of that inspection nor is there evidence it informed the resident of the outcome of the inspection. This meant the resident had to continue to chase up the matter. We acknowledge that resolving leaks can be complex and take time. In these circumstances it is important for the landlord to provide clear and effective communication to the resident giving regular updates and setting out its expectations. In this case, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not reasonable; there were few updates, and she had to regularly chase for information.
  5. When the resident reported that water ingress was now affecting 2 bedrooms a few months later, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging an inspection within a few days. This inspection made several recommendations most of which were high priority and which it noted should be completed within 3 months.
  6. The repairs identified in November 2022 were taken forward as follows:
    1. The work to the front door was completed in December 2022 and August 2023.
    2. Assessment and repairs to the chimney were completed in July 2023.
    3. Repointing (which had also been identified as a potential problem in April 2022) was completed in August 2023.
    4. There is no evidence these repairs were completed and the issue of water ingress through the windows was included in a further inspection of March 2024.
  7. For the more urgent ‘red’ rated works, the landlord carried out partial work to the door within the timescale of 3 months, the time to complete repairs to the door and to the chimney took 8 and 9 months respectively. Its repointing work (which was rated ‘amber’ should have been carried out within 6 months) took 16 months from when the work was first identified in April 2022. These delays were not reasonable and meant that the resident had to wait a significant amount of time before any meaningful repairs were completed.
  8. In early 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident asking about lifestyle conditions in relation to the mould in her daughter’s bedroom. That was not reasonable because, by the time the landlord sent the resident this questionnaire, it was aware of the structural problems that were causing the water ingress and likely leading to the damp and mould being experienced by the family. Furthermore, asking questions about lifestyle gives the impression of trying to shift the blame for the problems experienced onto the resident This can lead to the relationship between the resident and the landlord deteriorating and result in missed opportunities to address the problem.
  9. The lack of urgency and failure to act for long periods suggests a dismissive attitude towards the resident and others within a vulnerable household. The resident repeatedly reported leaks and mould and chased progress for over 18 months before substantive work was undertaken at the property. This attitude was compounded by workmen turning up unannounced on at least 3 occasions in November 2022 and June and August 2023.
  10. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged a breakdown in communication regarding the works that were required both externally with its contractors and internally with its own departments. It also acknowledged that the leaks and damp and mould had been going on for too long. It apologised for those failings. The landlord offered some compensation at stage one of its complaints process and at stage 2 said it would consider more compensation on completion of the works. We have considered the landlord’s approach to compensation, below.
  11. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  12. Financial compensation of £2,400 is appropriate here for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident and family members by the landlord’s significant delay in carrying out substantial works to try to rectify the water ingress in the property that led to damp and mould. This sum takes into account the inconvenience caused to the household by workmen turning up unannounced. This level of compensation also reflects the fact that, due to their vulnerabilities, these delays had a more severe effect on members of the household.
  13. As we have acknowledged, leaks can sometimes be difficult to diagnose and remedy. In this case, the evidence suggests that, after work had been completed to the roof, chimney and repointing, the resident continued to report water ingress. We understand that the landlord is to move the family on a temporary basis (decant them) so that further works can be carried out. A recommendation has been made, below, in relation to that decant.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days at both stages.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. There was a delay of over 3 weeks at stage one (taking into account the bank holidays over Christmas period) and a delay of over 5 months at stage 2.
  3. There were other complaint handling failures – the landlord did not add the issue of workmen turning up unannounced to the complaint as the resident requested a few days after making the formal complaint. The resident had brought up this matter, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. By not investigating this concern, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix any problems at an early stage.
  4. Furthermore, we expect landlords to include its consideration of redress in its complaint handling to acknowledge the impact on the resident and other members of the household. In this case it should have provided the resident with appropriate redress to recognise the impact of its acknowledged service failures at that point in time. If appropriate, it could consider further redress when the repairs had been completed. Postponing the consideration of redress runs the risk of the issue being overlooked, as appears happened in this case as the resident confirmed to us that no compensation had been paid to her.
  5. The landlord offered £25 for the delay in issuing the stage one complaint response. While it apologised for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response, it did not consider further redress. Given the significant delay, that was a failing. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by these complaint handling failures.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1.  We note 2 instances where the landlord’s record keeping fell short. First its request in January 2022 about when the roof of the property was renewed; second in April 2023 when it asked the resident to provide a copy of the stage one response as it did not have a copy on file. The landlord did not give any explanation as to why it did not have these records.
  2. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure its databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used. Staff should be able to easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. It is not reasonable for the landlord to rely on residents for this information.
  3. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by these instances of poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about leaks, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Response to the associated complaint.
    2. Record keeping.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The Chief Executive to apologise in writing to the resident. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £2,750 made up of:
      1. £2,400 for the impact on the full household of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
      2. £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.
      3. £150 for the impact of its record keeping failures.
    3. Write to the resident with details of the work it intends to take to resolve the leak, damp and mould. This should include when it intends to carry out the work, how long it will take and who will ensure the work has been completed to an appropriate standard.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. When considering the temporary move, the landlord should consider the needs of the family including their vulnerabilities; the location of the granddaughter’s nursery and the fact that one of the household is a wheelchair user.
    2. Redecorate the property as a gesture of goodwill before the family move back in after the repairs have been carried out.
    3. Review its initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
    4. Ensure its databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used.
    5. Ensure that it is supporting the family in relation to a permanent move (there is evidence suggesting the property is overcrowded). The landlord should actively explore solutions such as management moves and mutual exchanges, as well as ensuring the resident is registered with the relevant housing authority and supporting them to check their application has been given the correct priority banding.