Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Great Places Housing Association (202224598)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224598

Great Places Housing Association

3 January 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2010. The property is a 5 bedroom house and she lives there with her children.
  2. On 15 November 2021, the resident reported damp and mould around windows in the property. The landlord carried out a structural survey in February 2022. This noted there was historical and ongoing water ingress into the property caused by opened up joints around the window frames. It recommended works to address this, which the landlord said were completed on 30 May 2022. The following month, the landlord raised a job to reseal windows and install roof vents, which it noted was completed in July 2022.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 July 2022. She said that works were due to start at her property in February 2022, but it had taken 3 months for scaffolding to be put up. When she first reported this, she was told the rendering needed changing but now due to cost, the landlord was doing other works. Some of her furniture and personal items had been damaged by the damp and mould and she had to redecorate twice.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2022. It confirmed all works had been completed but acknowledged these were delayed. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. It could not agree to replace the resident’s damaged items as she had not provided photographic evidence of the damage. If offered a £75 decoration pack.
  5. The same month the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she was dissatisfied that the landlord had declined to reimburse her for the damaged items and asked it to reconsider this. There was still mould in the property and outstanding external redecoration works. The landlord had told her it would not remove scaffolding until after these works were completed, but it had subsequently attended and removed some of the scaffolding. When it did this, an operative identified that a long bladed tool had been left on the scaffolding, which could have seriously injured someone.
  6. In September and October 2022, the landlord raised works order to treat mould in the property, including the loft space. It recorded these were completed in October and November 2022.
  7. On 15 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This said works had not been carried out in a timely manner and that this had been acknowledged in the stage 1 response. The compensation/ redress offered at stage 1 was reasonable and it reoffered this. All internal works had been completed but there were external decoration works to complete, which the landlord noted were subsequently completed.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in January 2023. She said the damp was still present and some of her family’s personal items and furniture had been ruined because of this. When the landlord had removed scaffolding a large knife had fallen to the ground, which could have hurt one of her children.

Assessment and findings

  1. In January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the damp and mould returned. This was 2 months after her complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 15 November 2022. The landlord subsequently carried out a further inspection and said it completed works to address this in March 2023.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate matters which have not been assessed and responded to via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme). Therefore, the Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s handling of this matter up until the stage 2 response only. Anything that happened after this date falls outside the scope of this investigation. The resident can raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of this issue post 15 November 2022, if she remains dissatisfied about this. Once this has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, she can refer the matter back to this Service for investigation.
  3. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her children’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  5. The resident has reported that some of her family’s personal items and furniture were damaged as a result of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding in respect of liability, as this is more appropriately assessed via an insurance claim (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). What we have considered is how the landlord responded to this issue and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. When dealing with damp and mould, it is important that landlords seek to identify the underlying cause and any works required to address this. In this case, the landlord undertook a structural survey, which was sensible to enable it to do this. While sensible that it completed this survey, this was done nearly 3 months after the resident first reported this issue. This was too long considering the nature of what had been reported.
  3. After the resident reported the damp and mould in November 2021, the landlord arranged an inspection for the following month. However, there is no record this went ahead and the resident made contact on the day of the scheduled inspection to report that it had not attended. The failed inspection and overall delay in completing the initial investigations in to this issue amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling like the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  4. After the structural survey was completed on 14 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions in February and March 2022, asking for an update on the outcome of this. While the landlord made internal enquiries about this, there is no evidence that it updated the resident or told her what was happening. This left her feeling ignored and amounts to maladministration.
  5. In order to complete the works recommended by the structural survey, the landlord needed to put up scaffolding. Therefore, it was understandable that these works took slightly longer than routine repairs, which the landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it aimed to complete in as little time as possible.
  6. In this case, the landlord raised the works order on 15 March 2022 and said the works were completed 77 days later on 30 May 2022. This was too long considering there was water leaking into the property, which was causing damp and mould. The landlord itself acknowledged that the works were delayed. While there may have been a reasonable explanation for this delay, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident this or kept her updated on progress. This left her feeling let down and amounts to maladministration.
  7. In addition to identifying and resolving the underlying cause of damp and mould, landlords should also take action to treat and remove this. In this case, the landlord did not do this until October and November 2022, when it attended to complete mould washes in the property. This was around a year after the resident first reported the damp and mould, and only after she escalated her complaint to stage 2. This delay amounts to maladministration and left the resident and her children living in a property with mould for an extended period. This is particularly concerning in this case as the resident told the landlord the room most affected was her children’s, who had additional needs.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord implemented a standalone damp and mould policy in July 2023, which sets out how it will investigate and resolve these issues. This is positive and should help the landlord ensure that failures such as those identified in this case, do not happen. While having a policy is positive, it is important that the landlord provides training on this so that staff understand their responsibilities. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to provide training to all staff involved in the handling of damp and mould cases, on a good practice approach to this in line with its policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.
  9. The Ombudsman has identified gaps and inconsistencies in the landlord’s records in this case, which are a cause for concern. One example of this is that the landlord has told this Service that the works recommended by the structural survey were completed on 30 May 2022, however, its repairs records show that the works order was completed on 11 May 2022. While not a large discrepancy, this is concerning as it is important that landlord’s data is accurate so it can effectively monitor its compliance against repair completion targets.
  10. Similarly, the landlord told this Service that following completion of the works on 30 May 2022, the resident asked for further works to be put on hold as she was concerned about the long term solutions proposed. It said it suggested the works went ahead and once completed, it would instruct an independent third party to review the works and confirm whether these were appropriate, or if further actions were required.
  11. Despite the Ombudsman specifically asking for evidence of these discussions, the landlord has been unable to provide this. Based on the information provided by the landlord, its response to the resident’s concerns appears reasonable and showed that it took her concerns seriously. The landlord has provided evidence that the outcome of the survey was that the recommended works were suitable and had been completed to an acceptable standard. This was subsequently shared with the resident and was reassuring for her.
  12. It is worrying that there is no record of these discussions and subsequent agreed action as the landlord should be recording all contact with residents. This was particularly important in this instance as the landlord said it agreed to complete a 2nd independent survey as a result of the resident’s concerns. As this incurred additional financial cost for the landlord, it should have ensured this was properly recorded to account for its decisions and provide justification for the additional expense incurred.
  13. In her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to the landlord, the resident said that she had originally been told by a contractor that the damp and mould was caused by failed rendering. The landlord did raise an order to inspect failed rendering on 17 May 2022 and noted it arranged to attend that month. However, there is no record that it did and it is unclear if this is because the inspection did not go ahead or because it failed to record this. The works order was recorded as completed in August 2022, but there were no notes on the outcome of this so it is unclear whether any works were required or completed.
  14. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident was told the damp and mould was a result of failed rendering and the structural survey report makes no mention of this either. However, in light of the gaps and inconsistencies in the landlord’s records, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the resident was told this was a contributing factor or not.
  15. Ultimately, the resident raised this concern on more than one occasion with the landlord, but there is no evidence that it addressed or responded to this. Its failure to respond left her feeling uncertain on the root cause of this issue and that the landlord was not being truthful with her. This amounts to maladministration.
  16. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its record keeping arrangements in respect of the record keeping failures identified as part of this investigation. A written report to be provided to the resident and this Service setting out any actions required to improve record keeping arrangements or practices going forward.
  17. In August 2022, the landlord told the resident that it would not remove scaffolding until after external redecoration works had been completed. Despite making this commitment, the resident reported that the next day the landlord attended and removed some of the scaffolding with no prior warning. This caused confusion and disappointment for her as the landlord did not keep to its commitment.
  18. The resident told the landlord that an operative found a large bladed tool had been left on the scaffolding and also subsequently reported that a large bladed knife fell from the scaffolding. It is not clear if these reports relate to 1 or 2 separate incidents. Either way, this was understandably concerning for the resident as she had young children who were playing in and around the property.
  19. When the resident raised these concerns with the landlord, it apologised and agreed to investigate this with its contractor. The resident said the bladed article could have injured one of her children and while understandably concerning for her, this did not actually happen. Therefore, there was no significant adverse effect caused to the resident. In light of this, the landlord’s response to this issue was reasonable in the circumstances, as it agreed to highlight the near miss to its contractor in order to prevent further incidents of this nature occurring.
  20. When the resident reported that personal items, furniture and decoration had been damaged as a result of the damp and mould, the landlord asked for evidence of the damage and costs incurred. This was reasonable to allow it to make an assessment of this issue and in line with its compensation policy at the time. This said the landlord would consider quantifiable loss payments, including reimbursement for damaged personal items and redecoration costs.
  21. While the resident was able to provide evidence of costs incurred, she could not provide photos of the damage as she said these were lost on a phone that had broken. In light of this, the landlord declined to reimburse her costs for any damaged items. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision was reasonable as it needed to be satisfied that the items had been damaged as a result of the damp and mould. The landlord did offer the resident a £75 decoration pack as a gesture of goodwill. While this was not what she wanted, it showed that the landlord was trying to support her in resolving the matter and putting things right. An order has been made below for the landlord to reoffer this to the resident.
  22. The landlord acknowledged there were failures in its handling of this matter. It apologised and offered £150 compensation, in addition to the £75 decoration pack. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the compensation amount is considered insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation, inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in 12 working days. This was slightly over the committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time and so only a minor delay.
  2. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 10 August 2022, which was the day after the response was provided. Within this reply, she did not expressly ask to escalate her complaint, however, she did say that she was dissatisfied with the response. Therefore, this should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2, but it did not.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on at least 2 further occasions in August 2022 and expressly asked to escalate her complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action or responded to these escalation requests. This left the resident feeling ignored and amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint in October 2022, after she made a further escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 November 2022, which was 68 working days after the first expression of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, on 10 August 2022. This was significantly over the committed response time of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time and amounts to maladministration.
  5. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response; however, there is no evidence that it considered any other form of redress for the resident. This would have been appropriate considering the significant delay in providing the final response and the time and trouble incurred by the resident in getting the complaint escalated to stage 2. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Reoffer the resident the £75 decoration pack.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, made up of £350 for its handling of the damp and mould (inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already) and £150 for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide training to all staff involved in the handling of damp and mould cases, on a good practice approach to this in line with its policy. This order will be considered complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months. Evidence of compliance to be provided, to this Service, within 8 weeks.
  4. Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review its record keeping arrangements in respect of the record keeping failures identified as part of this investigation. Provide a written report to the resident and this Service setting out any actions required to improve record keeping arrangements or practices going forward. Evidence of compliance to be provided, to this Service, within 12 weeks.

 

 

 

Chat to us