Golding Homes Limited (202217726)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217726

Golding Homes Limited

31 August 2023

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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request for compensation in relation to the reported damp and mould.
3. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 21 August 2006. The property is a one bedroom, first floor flat.
The landlord’s records show that the resident is vulnerable due to her mental health.
Under the terms of the landlord’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to keep the following parts of the property in good condition:
1. The structure and outside of the building, including the roof, walls, floors, ceilings, window frames, outside doors, drains, gutters and outside pipes.
2. Kitchen and bathroom fixtures; basins, sinks, toilets and baths.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are acknowledged within five working days of receipt and a reply is sent within eight working days of the acknowledgement. Stage two replies are sent within 20 days of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate a complaint.

Summary of events

On 13 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in her property. The landlord’s records indicate that it raised an order on the same day for its damp and mould contractor to treat the mould. However, the landlord identified that an asbestos survey in relation to the lounge ceiling was required before the mould treatment could begin.
On 9 February 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord, in which she stated:
1. She had been chasing the front door replacement since before the pandemic.
2. A contractor had been booked to inspect the property for mould on 23 February 2022. The resident said her physical and mental health were both being affected by the problem.
3. She wanted the landlord to resolve the condensation problems and remove the mould.
4. She was hoping that a new kitchen could be fitted, rather than having new parts fitted which did not match the existing units. The resident indicated that the kitchen units were old and obsolete.
The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 10 February 2022 and sent its stage one reply on 11 February 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had checked its stock condition information and advised the resident that the kitchen was not due for an upgrade until 2026. However, it would arrange for a validation survey to be carried out.
2. An appointment had been booked for a surveyor from the landlord’s approved damp and mould contractor to inspect the property on 23 February 2022.
3. The landlord had approved the quote to renew the front door and said it would take 6-8 weeks to manufacture the new door.
4. The landlord apologised for its communications and said that it had learnt from the experience , particularly in relation to communication, following up on appointments and using its reporting systems. The details of the complaint would be shared with the relevant teams to improve systems and identify training requirements.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection of the kitchen and an internal email from landlord set out the main findings, which were:
1. The inspector stated that the kitchen was in a good, usable condition and did not require replacement.
2. Some repairs were required to the kitchen units (resecuring two drawers and replacing a blanking drawer and a door under the sink). The kitchen window also needed to be repaired due to a defective seal.
3. The inspector confirmed that the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2026.
4. The inspector had advised the resident to claim from her contents insurance for any belongings that had been damaged by mould.
A surveyor from the landlord’s approved damp and mould contractor inspected the property on 23 February 2022 and produced a report on 28 February 2022. The main findings from the inspection were:
1. The extractor fan in the kitchen was defective.
2. There was mould staining internally “at the perimeter of the building” throughout due to thermal bridging, concrete finlock gutters and a lack of ventilation.
3. There was condensation on the WC cistern in the bathroom.
4. There were cracks to the artex ceilings.
5. The report confirmed that an asbestos survey was required in relation to the lounge ceiling.
The landlord’s records indicate that an asbestos survey of the lounge ceiling was carried out on 29 March 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 April 2022 to advise her that it was awaiting the results of the asbestos survey.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had received the asbestos report and had instructed the damp and mould contractor to proceed with the mould treatment. The contractor had been instructed to contact the resident by 19 April 2022 to arrange a start date.
On 18 May 2022, the resident contacted her MP and the landlord to report that the damp and mould contractor had still not contacted her with a firm start date for the works.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor started the works on 24 May 2022, having previously advised the resident it would start them on 23 May 2022. The works included mould treatment, the renewal of trickle vents in the bedroom and lounge windows, repainting the walls and ceilings with anti-condensation paint, the installation of condensation control fans in the bathroom and kitchen and the installation of a vent cowl in the kitchen.
The resident wrote to the contractor on 25 May 2022 and 6 June 2022 to advise that the mould wash carried out in 2015 had not resolved the issues and this had led to medical issues. The resident also advised the contractor that she had found mould in her wardrobe and chest of drawers.
The remedial works to the property were completed on 23 June 2022 and were signed off as satisfactory by the landlord’s surveyor following an inspection on 6 July 2022.
On 1 August 2022, the resident submitted a claim with photos to the landlord for possessions she reported had been damaged by mould. The landlord’s records show that the resident had claimed £2,282 for items including a sofa, a bedside table and clothes. The landlord replied on 2 September 2022 and offered the resident £680.40 in relation to her claim for damaged possessions and inconvenience caused, which it stated had been calculated in the absence of any original receipts from the resident. The landlord said it was unable to reimburse the resident for the damaged carpet as it understood the damage had largely been caused by a pet and its offer included an element for the inconvenience caused to the resident. Finally, the landlord recommended that the resident take out contents insurance as it was unable to insure residents’ possessions.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2022 and advised the landlord that she already had contents insurance but had been informed by the insurers that her policy did not cover mould damage. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 12 September 2022 and provided additional photos of possessions she said had been damaged. She informed the landlord that although vents were installed in the bedroom, there was still a lot of mould and excess moisture, which was causing the ‘damp traps’ to fill up quickly. She stated that some of her possessions smelled musty and that more repair appointments were needed to remove mould spores that were still present, for example, on the loft hatch. She highlighted that the kitchen cupboard smelled of mould because the wall behind the cupboard had not been thoroughly mould-washed due to the cupboard obstructing access. Finally, the resident advised the landlord that she would not be able to proceed with a meeting that had been planned with the landlord for 13 September 2022 as she wanted to arrange for an advocate to attend.
In response to a letter dated 7 October 2022 from the resident’s advocate (which this Service has not seen), the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 October 2022, in which it confirmed that it had offered £680.40 but said it had not received a response from the resident regarding the offer. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had since been in contact and therefore her recent letter regarding compensation would be considered by the landlord. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had reported seeing further mould in the property, which had not previously been treated, and therefore the landlord requested the resident to confirm whether she would like a surveyor to inspect the property and for a separate face-to-face meeting to take place with the landlord to conclude the matter. Finally, the landlord advised the resident that the kitchen was due for renewal in 2026 and the bathroom in 2033.
The resident replied to the landlord on 31 October 2022 and stated that she had complained about the mould for the past nine years and that her possessions had been damaged by the mould. The resident confirmed that she would welcome an inspection by a surveyor and a face-to face meeting if her advocate and a representative from the local authority also attended. The resident’s letter indicated that she would make the arrangements for her advocate and the local authority representative to be available before confirming that the inspection and the meeting could proceed. The resident stated that it was unreasonable to expect her to wait until 2026 for a new kitchen as mould had penetrated the existing kitchen cupboards and units and she had a doctor’s note confirming the impact the conditions had had on her physical and mental health.
During 2 November and 9 November 2022, the resident sent various emails and texts to the landlord, which included the following points:
1. The resident had been advised by the insurance company that her policy did not cover possessions that were damage by mould.
2. The resident stated on 9 November 2022 that the works carried out by the landlord had not resolved the problem as the mould had started to appear again on her belongings even though she had cleaned them.
During an exchange of texts between the landlord and resident on 9 November 2022, the landlord confirmed that it could arrange an inspection and asked the resident whether she was available during the following week (the landlord mentioned that the resident could arrange for her advocate to be in attendance if she wished). The resident replied on the same day to say that she wanted to deal with someone higher up in the organisation and wanted the landlord to escalate her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2022 and 5 December 2022 to report that there was mould on the food in the kitchen cupboard and that she was dissatisfied that her kitchen would not be replaced until 2026. She stated that the measures taken by the landlord had not been sufficient to prevent the mould reappearing. She requested compensation to replace the possessions she reported had been damaged.
On 8 December 2022, the resident notified the landlord about the mould using the landlord’s online damp and mould reporting tool. The form submitted by the resident stated that she had physical and mental health complications.
Internal emails dated 12 December 2022 from the landlord mentioned that the resident had suggested that the finlock gutters may have been blocked and may be contributing to the reported damp and mould. However, the landlord had inspected the gutters and found them not to have been blocked and it had concluded that the gutters were not linked to the reported damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord’s emails also mentioned that it had received feedback from its maintenance inspector that the damage to the resident’s carpet had been caused by pets rather than mould, and it had therefore decided not to compensate the resident for the damaged carpets.
The landlord sent its stage two reply to the resident on 23 December 2022, which outlined its findings as follows:
1. The kitchen units had been inspected by a surveyor and were deemed to be in reasonable condition and therefore the kitchen would be renewed in 2026 as per the home condition survey in 2018.
2. The landlord’s specialist damp and mould contractor had inspected the property on 23 February 2022 and had carried out works from 24 May 2022 to 23 June 2022. The landlord had signed off the completed works on 6 July 2022.
3. The resident had reported that signs of mould were visible behind some of the radiators.
4. The landlord had booked an inspection of the property to take place on 4 January 2023 following the resident’s submission of the online damp and mould form in December 2022.
5. The landlord apologised that its stage two reply had been two days later than expected.
6. The landlord had received the resident’s claim on 12 December 2022 requesting a £20,000 settlement for stress, anxiety, inconvenience and worry, which the resident said had affected her mental health.
7. The landlord had previously offered the resident £680.40 at stage one and was now prepared to offer an additional £270 in recognition of the additional stress and anxiety the resident experienced and £30 for the delay in replying to the stage two complaint. The total compensation offer was therefore £980.40.
On 24 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two letter.
The landlord’s approved damp and mould contractor inspected the property on 4 January 2023 and reported the following findings to the landlord on 5 January 2023:
1. The vent cowls were found to be closed and the extractor fans were turned off and therefore it would rectify these “snagging issues”.
2. The contractor had not seen any evidence of fungal damage to carpets or furnishings.
3. The black mould was only mould staining at the wall/ceiling junction around the perimeter of the property due to thermal bridging of the finlock gutters and a lack of ventilation.
4. The contractor concluded that, if after the ventilation issues had been resolved, the anti-condensation paint was not providing sufficient surface temperature increase, it could use thermal lining paper or board.
5. The contractor recommended additional work including replacing the ceramic WC cistern with a plastic one, insulating the loft hatch and insulating the pipework.
6. The contractor had advised the landlord that the grilles to the fans had been incorrectly fitted last year.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2023 and confirmed that the contractor had fitted new fans, which were working well (this Service has not seen information confirming the date these were fitted). The resident confirmed that she was happy for the landlord to carry out a further inspection, but felt that the kitchen needed to be renewed as it had signs of mould.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord visited the resident and agreed a list of actions, which it sent to the resident on 17 February 2023. The actions included:
1. The landlord inspecting the bedroom floor.
2. Replacement of the kitchen.
3. Replacement of the WC cistern.
4. Replacement of the vinyl flooring in the bathroom.
5. Touching up the bath enamel.
6. Inspect the loft for fire breaks.
7. Repairing the sticking front-door.
8. Replacement of the internal doors (the landlord confirmed this was usually the tenant’s responsibility but agreed to carry out the work).
9. The landlord would discuss the level of compensation further with the resident.
The resident wrote on 7 March 2023 to inform the landlord that she had produced a more comprehensive list of possessions that had been damaged and was seeking £20,000. The resident said that she did not accept the landlord’s offer of £980.40.
The landlord’s contractor started the additional works on 7 March 2023 and was expecting to complete them by 24 March 2023. The resident provided the landlord with photos of the wall behind the kitchen units after the units had been removed. The resident said the photos showed there was mould growth on the wall.
The landlord’s records show that a full asbestos survey was carried out on 15 March 2023 in relation to the kitchen prior to the refurbishment of the kitchen.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 regarding her claim for compensation and stated the following:
1. The landlord stated that, as per its compensation policy, where it is at fault it would use 50% of the value of damaged items to calculate compensation if receipts could not be provided.
2. Although the landlord did not have evidence that the kitchen was unfit, it had agreed to replace the kitchen as a means of resolving the complaint.
3. The landlord said it recognised that the resident had suffered distress and inconvenience, which had exacerbated her health conditions at times.
4. The return of the damp and mould had been unforeseen by the landlord and, in its view, it had acted reasonably once it was brought to its attention.
5. The landlord would reconsider its offer of £980.40 for damaged goods if the resident could provide evidence of the damaged items.
6. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the return of the damp and mould and offered an additional £450, bringing the total offer to £1,430.40.
The resident replied to the landlord on 31 March 2023 and declined its offer of compensation. She stated that her claim for compensation was based on the loss of possessions over the past 10 years and said that she was still suffering from breathing issues. The resident confirmed that she was pleased with the repairs carried out by the landlord so far.
On 3 May 2023, the resident texted the landlord to confirm that the fitting of the replacement kitchen had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has been complaining to the landlord about damp and mould for the past 10 years. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that a formal complaint about these matters exhausted the landlord’s complaints process prior to 2022. Therefore, as the resident submitted her formal complaint on 9 February 2022, after she reported damp and mould to the landlord in January 2022, the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation is from 2022 onwards.
The resident seeks to be compensated for possessions that she reported were damaged by damp and mould. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. Similarly, this Service does not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s compensation request in line with its policy and procedure and followed good practice when reaching its decisions.
The resident also seeks to be compensated for the impact of events on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which was introduced in August 2021 includes the following commitments:
1. The landlord commits to carrying out an initial mould wash on each reported area of a property to assist in the prevention of mould returning or escalating.
2. The landlord will carry out a property inspection at each property where a damp and mould report has been received and commits to carrying out any works identified in the property where the landlord is responsible.
3. When an inspection identifies that the cause of any damp or mould is not the result of a building defect or disrepair, the landlord will offer residents help and advice with ways in which the resident can reduce and prevent damp and mould in their property.
The landlord’s customer offer, which was launched on its website in September 2022, states:
1. Once a resident has reported damp and mould, the landlord will contact the resident within five working days to book an appointment with them.
2. During the landlord’s visit to the property, the landlord “will work with [the resident] to help get rid of existing damp and mould and provide [the resident] with advice on how to prevent it reoccurring in the future”.
3. The landlord will advise the resident within ten working days of the work it will carry out.
The resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould on 13 January 2022, and on the same day the landlord raised an order for its damp and mould contractor to treat the mould. The landlord’s initial response was therefore appropriate as it immediately sent an order to its specialist contractor to treat the mould within the property. An appointment was made for the damp and mould contractor to inspect the property on 23 February 2022, which was over a month after the resident had reported the problem. Although this delay was not excessive, it was nevertheless a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it took this long to assess the extent of the problem. It is important that inspections are carried out promptly so that the landlord can assess the urgency of any works that might be required.
The work to address the damp and mould was carried out during the period from 24 May 2022 to 23 June 2022. It had therefore taken three months from the inspection on 23 February 2022 to the start of the repairs. Although this delay was partly due to the need for an asbestos survey, the delay in starting the work was nevertheless inappropriate as it meant that the resident was anxious about when the work would begin, which prompted her to chase the landlord and contact her MP on 18 May 2022.
Following completion of the work, the resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2022 to report that there were signs of mould spores in the property, for example, on the loft hatch. She also pointed out that the kitchen cupboard smelled of mould because the wall behind the cupboard had not been thoroughly mould-washed. On 28 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged that she had reported seeing further evidence of mould in the property. The landlord requested the resident to confirm that she was happy for a surveyor to carry out a further inspection and for a face-to-face meeting to take place. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not contact the resident until 28 October 2022 to offer an inspection following her contact on 12 September 2022. The resident’s email shows that she was very anxious about the reappearance of the mould and therefore the delay would simply have increased this anxiety. Also, as previously stated, it is important to inspect mould as soon as possible to assess the urgency of any remedial work.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 October 2022 to say that she would welcome a surveyor attending and a face-to-face meeting as long as her advocate and representative from the local authority could also attend. The resident’s letter indicated that she would contact the landlord once she had been in touch with her advocate and the local authority representative. Although it was understandable that the resident wanted the support of the people mentioned, this appears to have delayed the surveyor’s inspection taking place. Given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it was reasonable that the landlord did not arrange the inspection without first receiving confirmation from the resident about the availability of the local authority representative. The texts that were exchanged between the landlord and resident on 9 November 2022 show that the landlord had offered to arrange an inspection of the property during the following week. However, the resident did not agree to this and instead requested contact with a more senior person within the organisation. Although the resident did not agree to the inspection taking place, it was appropriate that the landlord had offered the inspection at that stage as it had been almost two weeks since the landlord had proposed the inspection on 28 October 2022.
The resident sent further correspondence to the landlord on 12 November 2022 and 5 December 2022 to report mould in the kitchen cupboards (and on her food items) and on 8 December 2022 she submitted a form using the landlord’s online damp and mould reporting tool. She advised the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. The landlord confirmed in its stage two reply on 23 December 2022 that it had arranged for an inspection to take place on 4 January 2023. The landlord had therefore arranged for an inspection to take place within 28 days of receiving the online damp and mould form from the resident, which was reasonable given that the period included the Christmas and new year break (The evidence suggests that during the period prior to the submission of the online form there was still some uncertainty as to whether the resident had made the arrangements with the local authority representative to enable the survey to proceed).
The agreed inspection took place on 4 January 2023 and the contractor identified further works. These works were subsequently agreed with the resident on 10 February 2023 in the form of an action plan. There was therefore a delay of over a month between the inspection and the landlord agreeing the action plan with the resident. However, as the resident had written on various occasions to express her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident prior to ordering the works. The action plan was a positive step taken by the landlord to resolve the dispute. The works started on 7 March 2023 and included the replacement of the kitchen, which was completed on 3 May 2023.
During the inspection on 4 January 2023, the contractor identified that some of the ventilation equipment installed in May 2022 had been incorrectly fitted. This has not been disputed by the landlord. The error in fitting the equipment would undoubtedly have impacted on the effectiveness of the equipment and therefore on the levels of condensation within the property. The evidence suggests that the issues were addressed promptly by the contractor after it had identified them (the resident wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2023 and stated that the new fans were working well). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could not have reasonably known about the incorrectly installed equipment as it was entitled to rely on the workmanship of its specialist damp and mould contractor who had fitted the fans.

The resident’s request for compensation in relation to the reported damp and mould

The landlord’s compensation policy defines financial redress as the “repayment of costs incurred by customers because of [the landlord’s] service failure”. It goes on to say:
1. Payments made as part of financial redress will need to be evidenced by receipts/proof of purchase or proof of costs incurred.
2. The landlord may choose to make a discretionary payment as a goodwill gesture to recognise a resident’s “distress, time, trouble or inconvenience”.
The landlord’s compensation procedure includes the following provisions:
1. The landlord may consider a discretionary payment should the customer not be able to evidence all proof of payments.
2. The landlord will pay full financial redress with proof of costs / receipts (hard copies or online).
3. Photographs of the goods being owned that are damaged within the home are accepted in the absence of receipts. If no receipts or photos can be provided, the landlord will apply 50% of the value of the items where the landlord is at fault. This is on an indemnity basis rather than replacement and the value will be determined by applying the cost of similar products which are for sale at the time of the claim.
On 1 August 2022, the resident submitted an itemised list of possessions that she stated had been damaged by mould. She also submitted photos of the damaged items and claimed a total of £2,282. The landlord responded on 2 September 2022 and offered the resident £680.40, which it stated had been calculated in the absence of any original receipts from the resident. The time taken for the landlord to respond was reasonable as it had to consider the resident’s claim and obtain the necessary approvals as set out in its compensation procedure. Given that there had been delays in carrying out the initial inspection and in starting the remedial work, it was right that the landlord responded positively to the resident’s claim and made an offer to compensate the resident for the damaged possessions and inconvenience caused.
The information seen by this Service shows that the landlord applied a formula to reduce each sum claimed on the resident’s itemised list in order to recognise the age and condition of each item. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure, which states that claims will be paid on ‘an indemnity basis’, i.e. amounts will take into account the age and condition of items, and therefore the process followed by the landlord was appropriate. The landlord’s notes show that it had accepted the photos provided by the resident as proof of the damaged items instead of original receipts, which was also in line with its compensation procedure. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord helpfully stated in its letter of 30 March 2023 that it would be prepared to reconsider its offer for the damaged goods if the resident could provide further evidence of the damaged items.
The resident had included a claim for damaged carpets, but this was rejected by the landlord. The landlord advised the resident that based on feedback from one of its inspectors, it believed the damage had been caused by a pet rather than mould. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord had acted reasonably by inspecting the carpets and advising the resident of the reason for its decision.
In its stage two reply, the landlord confirmed its original offer of £680.40 and offered an additional £270 for the stress and anxiety experienced by the resident and £30 for the delay in replying to the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord therefore offered a revised total of £980.40. The additional offer was made in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, which allows for a discretionary offer to be made to recognise “distress, time, trouble or inconvenience”.
The reappearance of the mould from September 2022 onwards caused the resident further anxiety and inconvenience. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to make a revised offer of financial redress on 30 March 2023. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered an additional £450, bringing the total offer to £1430.40 as follows:
1. £680.40 for damaged possessions and inconvenience;
2. £720 for stress and inconvenience (i.e. £270 plus £450)
3. £30 for the delay in replying to the stage two complaint.
The figure of £720 was offered by the landlord specifically to recognise and put right the stress and inconvenience caused by the damp and mould. This figure is within the range of financial redress suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there has been a failure which had a physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. In this case, the resident experienced stress and inconvenience due to the damp and mould, which was exacerbated by:
1. The delays in arranging the initial inspection in February 2022 and in starting the remedial work in May 2022.
2. The reappearance of the mould and the delay in the landlord offering the resident a re-inspection of the property in September / October 2022.
3. The incorrect fitting of the ventilation equipment in May 2022.
4. The resident’s known vulnerability in terms of her mental health.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the figure of £720 was reasonable financial redress to recognise the impact of the damp and mould on the resident when considered alongside the following steps taken by the landlord to put things right:
1. The landlord apologised to the resident in its letter dated 30 March 2023.
2. The landlord replaced the resident’s internal doors, even though internal doors are the resident’s responsibility to repair (as per its repairs policy).
3. The landlord replaced the kitchen, even though it stated it had no evidence the kitchen was unfit.
4. The landlord offered compensation for damaged possessions.
5. The landlord offered to reconsider the amount for damaged goods if the resident provided further evidence.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen

The Home Standard published by the Regulator of Social Housing states that social landlords must ensure that tenants’ homes meet the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) and must maintain their homes to at least this standard.
In order for a property to meet the DHS, it must have reasonably modern facilities and services. A property fails to meet the DHS if it lacks three or more modern facilities, such as the kitchen being more than 20 years old or the bathroom being more than 30 years old.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 February 2022 and requested a new kitchen because the existing one was, in her view, old and parts were no longer available. The landlord replied on 11 February 2022 and confirmed that it had checked its stock condition information and identified that the kitchen was not due for replacement until 2026. However, the landlord agreed to carry out a validation survey to check the condition of the kitchen. As the landlord had carried out a stock condition survey in 2018, it was appropriate for the landlord to examine the outcome of this survey in relation to the kitchen to determine when it was due to be replaced. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to carry out a validation survey of the kitchen to check its current condition and whether it was still serviceable as the kitchen might have deteriorated since the landlord carried out the stock condition survey.
The landlord carried out the validation survey in a timely manner on 22 February 2022 and concluded that the kitchen was in good condition and did not require replacement. The surveyor had noted that some repairs were required to the kitchen units and had advised the resident during the inspection that it would try to match the existing units as far as possible when replacing parts. The landlord’s notes state that the surveyor advised the resident during the inspection that the kitchen was not due for replacement until 2026. This advice was reiterated in the landlord’s letter of 28 October 2022 and in its stage two reply on 23 December 2022. Having established during the inspection on 22 February 2022 that the kitchen did not require replacement, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to carry out repairs to the kitchen units as the landlord was still responsible for ensuring the kitchen was in good repair. It was also appropriate to advise the resident both verbally and in writing of the year the kitchen was due for renewal in order to manage her expectations. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states: “landlords should manage resident’s expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unreasonable or unrealistic”.
The resident continued to request the replacement of her kitchen and on 10 February 2023, the landlord visited the property and agreed that the kitchen would be renewed. The landlord subsequently clarified in its letter dated 30 March 2023 that although it had no evidence of the kitchen being unfit for purpose, it had agreed to the replacement of the kitchen in order to find a resolution to the resident’s complaint. This was a positive step by the landlord to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to the reported damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord carrying out its inspection in February 2022, starting the remedial works in May 2022 and responding to the resident’s report in September 2022 that the mould had reappeared. However, the landlord apologised to the resident, offered appropriate financial redress to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the damp and mould, offered compensation for damaged possessions, offered to replace the internal doors and renewed the kitchen.
The landlord considered the resident’s claim for compensation and, in line with its policy/procedure, offered compensation for the damaged items and a goodwill payment to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the damp and mould.
The landlord referred to its 2018 stock condition survey and advised the resident that the kitchen was not due for renewal until 2026. It arranged a validation survey to check the condition of the kitchen and confirmed it was in good condition. Nevertheless, the landlord renewed the kitchen in order to help resolve the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident £1,430.40 for the damaged possessions, stress and inconvenience if this has not already been paid.
The landlord should write to the resident and provide an opportunity for her to submit evidence of any further items that were damaged by the damp and mould for the landlord to consider in accordance with its compensation policy/procedure.