Futures Housing Group Limited (202125641)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125641

Futures Housing Group Limited

4 November 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:
    1. The resident’s report of damp and mould and his subsequent request for compensation.
    2. The formal complaint into this matter.
    3. The resident’s reports of cracks and poor insulation in the property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s reports of cracks and poor insulation in the property.
  3. The resident has raised to this Service that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports of cracks in the walls and poor insulation in the property. However, there is no evidence that these concerns have been raised to the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. Therefore, we are unable to consider this element of the complaint as there is no evidence to suggest that it has been raised to the landlord as part of the formal complaint. If the resident has any further concerns with the landlord’s handling of his reports of cracks and poor insulation in the property, it is recommended that he raises a new complaint with the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his new complaint, he may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident raised a legal disrepair claim, but the case was closed due to lack of progress as the landlord had not received contact from the resident’s solicitor since May 2021. A damp survey took place on 6 June 2021 and the landlord subsequently completed the recommended works on 1 July 2021. Additional works were completed on 21 October 2021 to replace the kitchen fan and complete a mould wash.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 14 February 2022, as he said he had noticed damp issues a month after moving into the property, which was resolved after two years of extensive repair work. He stated that damage had been caused to the decoration, carpets and blinds in the property. He requested compensation as he said redecorating the property had cost him £1100 and replacing the carpets had cost £700. He added that he was unaware of the extensive work that was required when he moved in and he would have postponed decorating the property if he was aware of the damp and mould issues.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said that there was no damp identified when the property was empty before the resident moved in and the resident confirmed he was satisfied with the condition of the property when he signed up for the tenancy. It said a surveyor had inspected the property regarding the resident’s disrepair claim and said that there was some décor to be rectified due to the damp and mould. The landlord outlined the works which had been completed. It said that the majority of repair issues had been caused due to condensation, due to poor ventilation in the property. It said that it would not offer compensation for the cost of the carpet and redecoration.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied due to the issues with damp and mould in the property, and the subsequent damage this caused. He wanted the landlord to complete painting to the property and compensate him so he could complete the rest of the redecoration.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised this Service on 6 October 2022 that damp had recurred within the property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The landlord has not been given the opportunity to address the resident’s additional concerns with the recent recurrence of damp and mould. The resident should raise the additional concerns with the landlord, and progress as a new formal complaint if required.

Damp and mould

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in good decorative repair, and if there is damaged caused to the decoration of the property during maintenance work, the landlord will not redecorate, or compensate the resident for any damage caused. Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation policy states it will not consider compensation if “the losses suffered by the customer arise from an issue which falls under the customer’s responsibility in line with their tenancy agreement”. As a result, the landlord would not necessarily be obliged to complete redecoration or offer compensation for damaged decoration as requested by the resident in his complaint to this Service.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. The landlord’s website outlines steps that can be taken by the resident to prevent and treat mould. It also states that if the resident follows the advice provided and the issue does not improve, the landlord will investigate whether there is a structural cause. As such, the landlord is responsible for investigating and completing required repairs if mould in the property has a structural cause.
  3. In his complaint, the resident said that he was dissatisfied as he noticed damp and mould one month after moving into the property, which caused damage to the decoration. In its response, the landlord stated that no damp was identified during before the resident moved in and the resident had confirmed he was satisfied with the property’s condition at the tenancy sign up. As a result, the landlord demonstrated that it took the appropriate steps to ensure that the property was in a lettable standard at the beginning of the tenancy. It would therefore be unreasonable for the landlord to be accountable for the initial damage caused to the decorations, as there is no indication that the landlord was aware or should reasonably have been aware of damp and mould issues within the property at an earlier stage, or would have been able to undertake any actions to prevent the issues. Despite this, the landlord would be responsible for investigating the resident’s concerns following his initial report to establish whether there was a structural cause for the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord demonstrated that it took steps to establish whether there were any structural causes of damp and it subsequently took steps to resolve any issues identified by its contractors. A damp survey was completed on 9 June 2021 and the landlord subsequently carried out the recommended ventilation works on 7 July 2021, which was within an appropriate timeframe. The landlord completed additional works on 21 October 2021 to replace the kitchen fan and complete a mould wash. The mould wash was initially recommended within the damp survey and it is unclear why it took additional time to complete; however, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident chased the issue and the overall delay was not  excessive. It is possible that the mould wash was postponed, to ensure that the landlord had effectively repaired the structural cause of mould, to prevent the mould wash having to be undertaken several times. However, it is important for the landlord to ensure that the resident is advised of any reasons for a delay in completing required works. The contractor re-inspected the property on 22 November 2021 and noted that there had been no return of mould in the property, other than in the bathroom window, for which additional works were recommended to remedy the issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident raised additional concerns, until he raised the formal complaint.
  5. The schedule of works following the disrepair case identified that some of the reported issues with damp and mould were caused by condensation, rather than an issue with the structure of the building. The landlord’s online guidance regarding damp and mould, outlines that it is the resident’s responsibility to reduced condensation within the property. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with advice to increase ventilation in the property as the contractor had identified low temperatures and high humidity which could be causing damp and mould. If the resident has followed the landlord’s advice regarding increasing ventilation and heating the property effectively but this has not resolved the problem, the landlord would be expected at that point to look into the matter further and consider whether any other measures may be needed to reduce condensation. These measures will vary depending on the type of property and its layout etc but can include fitting window vents and/or extractor fans and increasing the size of radiators, amongst other measures.
  6. Following the complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property to assess his reports of damage. The contractor noted that issues with decoration had been resolved when necessary and a surveyor had attended on several occasions during 2021, and the resident had not raised any concerns previously. During the visit, the contractor noted that there was minimal damp, and the moisture levels had decreased since the previous visit. The landlord advised the resident on 24 March 2022 that a contractor would attend in three months to complete the required painting, as the property should have been fully dried out by then. It was reasonable for the landlord to postpone the decoration work as recommended by the contractor, to ensure longevity of the repair. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by outlining the additional works that were required and explaining the estimated timeframe and the reasons for the delay.
  7. The contractor emailed the landlord on 11 July 2022 and advised that an appointment had been scheduled for 21 June 2022, but was cancelled by the resident. While the landlord would not be accountable for the delay, there may be a legitimate reason for the resident cancelling the appointment. As such, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to reschedule the work if it remains outstanding.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by completing the required repairs within a reasonable timeframe. As there was no identified service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to resolve the damp and mould issues, the landlord exceeded its obligations by arranging repair works to the decoration of the property. It would also not be obliged to award compensation as there is no evidence of any specific failures by the landlord which led to the damage to the carpet and décor.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code (published on our website), landlords should ensure that they address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In the resident’s complaint, he raised concerns that damage had been caused to his blinds, due to being removed to install windows. Although the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the blinds not being reinstated, following removal by the landlord’s contractor to complete works, it failed to address the reported damage within its complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either internally investigated the resident’s claim, or have referred it to its liability insurer. Due to the time elapsed and the availability of evidence, it would not necessarily be practical at this stage for the resident’s claim to be referred as a liability insurer or investigated internally. Memories fade over time and it unlikely that an accurate and fair assessment of the cause of the damage could be carried out at this point. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s contractors were responsible for causing the damage to the blind and we cannot say that the landlord should pay for this damage, However, there was a missed opportunity to investigate the resident’s claim which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This has been considered when looking at overall compensation for failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that “in rare circumstances, where a complaint has not been resolved satisfactorily, a single stage appeal process may be invoked”. It notes that for the appeal process to proceed, the resident must provide additional evidence to be considered. In an email on 24 March 2022, the landlord advised the resident that his stage two request had been denied as it stated it had reviewed photos provided by the resident and there was nothing to substantiate his complaint. The same member of staff that issued the stage one response, also declined the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. This was inappropriate as it prevented the opportunity for the complaint to be independently assessed to ensure that the response was impartial. The landlord’s single stage complaint process, ultimately meant the resident’s complaint was not fairly reviewed. This meant there was a missed opportunity to reassess the complaint, which should have led to the landlord identifying that the complaint had not been fully addressed.
  3. Although the landlord’s complaint policy has the possibility for a review stage, it is not the default procedure. The Ombudsman’s view is a complaints procedure with only one stage poses a number of risks and is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Only allowing one response to a complaint can result in an insufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident or where an issue has been overlooked. A further complaint stage allows for a review at a more senior level (e.g. Director or Board) and ensures a wider perspective, level of expertise and full consideration of both sides of a complaint. Senior reviews also provide an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns to prevent further issues from arising and can allow for additional learning from the outcome of complaints. As such, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint policy, and considers implementing a two-stage complaint procedure, in line with best practice and the Complaint Handling Code.
  4. Overall, in this case, the landlord failed to respond in full to the resident’s complaint, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s one stage complaint procedure. The landlord has failed to acknowledged its complaint handling failure, so this element of the complaint remains unresolved. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledged its failing or attempted to put things right. In this case, the landlord’s complaint handling failings led to a missed opportunity for the complaint to be addressed in full. As a result, the landlord should award the resident £250 compensation.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme the resident’s reports of cracks and poor insulation in the property were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and request for compensation.
    2. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 in compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £250 for its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. £250 for its failings in complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1.  The landlord is to:

 

  1. Contact the resident to schedule an appointment to complete the outstanding painting works.
  2. Confirm that it has revised its damp and mould policy and processes in line with the recommendations outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould from October 2021.
  3. Assess its complaint handling policy, and bring it in line with this Service’s complaint handling code.