Havebury Homes (202338047)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould issues to the landlord and then complained about how it handled the problem. He said living in the property was bad for his health and that of his family. The landlord responded that it had offered to carry out works but the resident had failed to allow access for them to be done. The resident has now moved out of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of long-term damp and mould at the property.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of long-term damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right regarding its service failure.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord made reasonable attempts to deal with the damp and mould in the property, once it came to its attention. However, it failed to clearly respond to the resident’s queries about what work was necessary and whether it could have been identified sooner.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable. There was a slight delay in its stage 1 response, but no detriment was caused as a result.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate issues which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated he was aware of the damp and mould from 2013 onwards. However, there is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. For that reason, we will not investigate this issue going back to 2013 as raised by the resident. This report will concentrate on events from April 2023 onwards when the landlord noted damp and mould on a visit to the property.
8. The resident complained to us that his health and that of his family has been affected by the landlord’s actions (or lack of action). If he believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected his health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord visited the property on 9 November 2023 to carry out a damp and mould survey. This was prompted by it noticing these issues during a stock condition survey in April 2023. The landlord had decided to reinsulate the loft space following that first visit. This was arranged straightaway, and several times afterwards, but each time the resident cancelled the works.
10. The resident was unhappy that the issue with the insulation had not been identified much sooner. He said he reported the problem to the landlord on numerous occasions, but it blamed his lifestyle for causing the issue. As a result, he (and his family) had been living in conditions that he felt were unacceptable. The evidence provided does not show a recent history of reports to the landlord although the resident clearly disputes this. The resident acknowledged that he did not allow the works to go ahead, but this was because he wanted to be rehoused instead.
11. In terms of carrying out the identified works raised and reported by the resident in his complaints, the landlord acted reasonably. Its actions were in line with the situation and its policies in terms of scheduling the damp survey and raising works. However, when the resident questioned why it had not identified that the insulation needed attention much earlier, the landlord failed to offer any explanation. It did not state, for example, that the issue had not been reported to it, or clarify what the surveyor had found, or say that it was too late to raise a complaint about it now. It simply did not address the issue at all.
12. Further, in its final complaint response the landlord said that the insulation had been adequate all along and yet it had raised works to replace/add to it, particularly in the eaves. This left the resident unclear as to what works were required to the property, and why they were being carried out.
13. The resident felt the landlord had failed to give an accurate picture of what had happened with the insulation. The landlord’s communication on this issue was confusing and did not properly cover the queries raised by the resident. He was reasonably entitled to have an explanation for the landlord’s actions. This represented a service failing on the landlord’s behalf.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process for handling complaints. The first stage involves an initial investigation with the 2nd stage operating as a review. Complaints are to be acknowledged within 2 working days according to its Complaints Procedure. The policy says that stage 1 and 2 replies should be given in 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. The policy complies with our Complaints Handling Code.
15. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 9 November 2023 which was within 2 working days but its response was not sent until 19 December 2023. Some of this delay was because the resident did not make it clear until 30 November 2023 as to whether he wanted to go ahead with the complaint or not. He wanted to be rehoused in preference, and this was being considered and was agreed soon afterwards.
16. However, he also wanted to claim compensation and the landlord said it would only consider this request within the complaints handling process. The resident then opted to proceed. From this point the stage 1 response was delivered but it was 3 working days late. When the resident escalated the complaint, the stage 2 response was given on time.
17. There was a minor delay on the landlord’s part in issuing its stage 1 response. There is no evidence of this having any clear impact or detriment to the resident. In the circumstances, the delay was not significant enough to be considered a service failure.

Learning

18. The landlord must ensure that it clearly addresses all issues that are raised with it (or explain why it will not be doing so). It should refresh its knowledge of the Complaint Handling Code in this respect.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s records could be clearer in terms of when appointments have been made for repairs to be carried out.

Communication

20. Apart from the lack of clarity as set out above, the landlord’s communications with the resident were reasonable in terms of tone and content.