Guinness Housing Association Limited (202209680)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209680

Guinness Housing Association Limited

22 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.
    2. Decision to install cavity wall insulation (CWI) in 2018.

Background and summary of events 

  1. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat.
  2. In January 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the property to the landlord. The landlord advised the resident to contact their insurer. The insurer inspected the property and advised that the damp may be caused by a potentially failed cavity wall insulation (CWI) and advised further investigations. The landlord carried out two investigations and two reports were produced. In carrying out the investigations, the CWI contractor removed, tested and replaced the CWI. The landlord concluded that the CWI was not the cause of the damp and mould within the property. The resident disputed this position.
  3. In August 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response and included concerns about the CWI installation originally being installed without permission in 2018. The landlord responded in line with its formal complaint’s procedure on 31 August 2022. The resident escalated his complaint to Stage Two on 31 August 2022. The landlord issued a Stage Two response on 6 September 2022. The landlord, at both Stage One and Stage Two reviewed the inspections and set out its position that it was not responsible for the damp and mould issues or liable for the damage caused. The landlord also concluded that permission issue was not within the scope of its complaints process as it was out of time. The resident did not agree and bought his case to the Housing Ombudsman.

 Jurisdiction

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s remit for complaints is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in our opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  2. The resident raised concerns in 2022 about the CWI being installed in 2018 without his consent. Whilst the resident considered that this might be related to the damp and mould issues, the actual reasonableness of the installation and the consent were raised as a formal complaint 4 years after the issues arose. In line with its policy, the landlord deemed in its complaint responses, it could only investigate issues that had occurred within six months prior to the complaint being logged.
  3. The Ombudsman encourages resident to raise complaints with their landlord within reasonable period of time and while the complaint is still alive. In this particular case, the complaint was raised 4 years following the events. And whilst the resident considered the issues of the CWI installation and the damp and mould to be related, further inspections did not confirm it. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about whether the landlord was authorised to carry out and install the CWI will not be considered in this investigation report.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident about the damp and mould at the property

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines the repairs and maintenance responsibilities for their property. Specifically, section 4(4)(a) which clarifies that the resident is responsible for any repairs and maintenance. Further, the landlord’s policy reiterates that where the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord is not responsible for repairs, maintenance or any decorating relating to that property. As such, upon receiving the resident’s reports about damp and mould in January 2022 it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to their insurer following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. After the insurer carried out its inspection, the resident was advised to seek further investigation from a specialist as there were concerns that the CWI was incorrectly installed, which might have been the cause of the damp and mould issues reported by the resident. Whilst the landlord had no obligation or responsibility to carry out investigations, the landlord agreed to do so on behalf of the resident. In doing so it instructed two professionals to carry out investigations, namely a surveyor and a CWI contractor.
  3. Both the surveyor and CWI contractor reported that the mould and damp issues were not caused by the CWI. Further, the CWI contractor agreed to extract and replace CWI to rule out the possibility of it being the cause of the issues experienced. The CWI was replaced on 27 July 2022 and further inspection showed it was dry and that there were no issues within the wall. CWI contractor advised that this showed that the cause of the damp was not related to the CWI. It is noted that the contractor also offered to carry out a fungal wash as a gesture of goodwill, which the resident declined.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to identify the cause of the damp, and this having resulted in no evidence that the CWI it installed was the cause of the fault. The historic issue of the CWI installation is not something that will be considered in this report due to the significant time that has elapsed, however, it is noted that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on this issue and obtained two separate inspection reports which indicated that the CWI was not the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord identified other possible causes of damp and mould related to lack of ventilation and trickle vents. It also confirmed that the resident was responsible for repairs in accordance with the lease agreement.
  5. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on expert reports to determine whether it was responsible for the cause of the damp and mould. The reports indicated that the CWI carried out by the landlord did not attribute to the mould and damp, and that a possible cause may be the resident’s use of the property. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has responded fairly and reasonably to the issues raised by the resident in the complaint. As such a determination of no maladministration has been reached.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the installation of the CWI in 2018 without the resident’s permission is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.