Home Group Limited (202208159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208159

Home Group Limited

19 July 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:
1. Handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. Decision not to insulate the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a housing association tenant with an assured tenancy, which started on 23 January 20217. The property is a three-bedroom detached house with a permitted occupancy for six people. The resident shares the property with her household, which consists of herself, her partner and five children.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. However, the resident has advised this Service that she has disabilities.
When the resident contacted this Service in relation to her complaint, she explained that the landlord had been aware of the mould in the property since 2017.

Scope of investigation

This Service has seen evidence that the resident reported concerns regarding mould in 2019. Following her reports, the landlord commissioned a surveyor to investigate the cause of the mould. Evidence has also been provided that shows that the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions in 2019 following the surveyors report. Evidence showed that a recommendation was made by the landlord’s maintenance team to install new air vents. However, it is not clear whether this work was completed.
The evidence showed that the resident continued to seek a resolution to the mould in her property in 2020, and notes provided by the landlord showed that it had considered the possibility of thermal boarding the external walls. However, there is no evidence that an order for this job was ever raised, and it is therefore not clear to this Service whether there had been a realistic possibility of external insulation being installed at this time.
This report will not investigate the events that took place in 2019 and 2020. However, the surveyors report and evidence supplied by the resident and the landlord for this period will provide useful contextual information for the determination of this investigation.
The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to the investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. As such, this investigation will consider events starting from 9 February 2021 and culminating with the landlord’s final response of 25 March 2022.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

On 9 February 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord for an update on the works to insulate her property. She stated that a landlord representative had received a quote and she had been expecting the work to have been done in October 2020. There was no evidence of communication from either the landlord or the resident between October 2020 and February 2021.
The resident telephoned the landlord again on 12 February 2021, and further explained that she had been previously advised by the landlord, that following an inspection it was in the process of obtaining quotes from different companies for work to be completed to her property. She explained that she understood that said work should have been done by the end of 2020. The resident explained that she was still waiting for the work to be done and not getting any response from the landlord when chasing this.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident was making contact every two days for an update on the mould issue. The details of the resident’s concerns were forwarded to the maintenance team to provide an appropriate response.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2021, as she had still not received an update. During her call the resident advised that if she did not get a response, she would make a formal complaint. She contacted the landlord again nine days later.
The resident failed to get a response from the landlord and telephoned again on 11 May 2021, 12 May 2021, and 8 July 2021. Evidence provided by the landlord showed that the resident’s concerns were escalated to the maintenance team, but it failed to respond to her. Each time the resident explained that she had been suffering with damp and mould in her property for several years.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 8 July 2021, which was received by the relevant team on 14 July 2021. The resident explained that the reason for her complaint was that she had understood that the landlord was obtaining quotes for insulation work to be done on her property in September and October 2020, but that she had not had an update from the landlord. She added that each time she contacted the landlord she failed to receive a response to her requests for an appropriate member of the organisation to call her back.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 15 July 2021, to confirm the details of the resident’s complaint. In an internal email following the telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord noted that on the resident’s housing account there was a note stating, ‘Do not raise any inspections until further notice’. The landlord was unclear why this had been added.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in writing the same day. It set out that it understood her complaint to be that:
1. She had been waiting since September 2020 for works to be raised to address the worsening damp within her property.
2. She had contacted the landlord on several occasion for an update, but to no avail.
The letter did not set out the timescale for a response but stated that a leaflet detailing the complaints procedure had been enclosed. This Service has not seen a copy of that leaflet. However, the landlord’s notes showed that it aimed to provide a formal response by 28 July 2021.
On 19 July 2021, an internal email noted that according to the landlord’s internal notes system, on 20 April 2020 a previous member of the maintenance team had been waiting for photos of the mould and that there had been two requests for inspections raised since 2019, neither of which appeared to have been attended.
On 4th August 2021, the landlord commented in an internal email that due to annual leave, the resident had not yet received a response to her complaint.
An internal email exchange between 6 August 2021 and 11 August 2021, showed that the landlord was trying to arrange a visit to the property.
On 11 August 2021, the landlord issued the resident with a complaint update letter. Which stated that it had arranged for the landlord’s surveyor to visit and inspect the property on 18 August 2021. The purpose of the visit was to establish the works that were needed so that they could be raised and costed. The update explained that the work was a priority and the landlord hoped that progress would be made within the proceeding fortnight.
The letter apologised for the delay and explained that surveyors had left the organisation and that the maintenance team had been restructured. It assured the resident that the attending surveyor would discuss the proposed plan of action with her and added that the complaint would remain open until all actions were addressed.
On 19 August 2021, following the visit to the resident’s property, an internal email explained that given the time of year, it was difficult to deduce whether there was an issue with the insulation and exactly what the extent of the mould was. Although it noted that there was mould growth in the corners of the living room and bedroom. It suggested arranging for a damp and mould specialist to visit the property to offer a solution on providing warmth to the property by measures of various technology. The email noted that the issue had been highlighted in 2019 and there had been no progress since then and that perhaps it would be prudent to use guidance from an outside source or get the previous quotes and continue from there.
On 26 August 2021, an internal email showed that the landlord had instructed one of its officers to raise a damp survey for the property.
Further internal email exchanges between 26 August 2021 and 13 October 2021 discussed the progress of the unrelated repairs, that had been highlighted during the visit on 18 August 2021, and the issue of the damp in the property. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had stated that a damp survey had already been carried out at the property and that she did not want another. It also noted that the resident had explained that a previous surveyor had proposed adding external insulation to the whole of the property and the main rooms re-plastered using thermal board.
The landlord noted that there had been no progress in respect of damp works and that it was not sure how best to proceed. It also noted that it was unclear if it still held a copy of the previous damp survey.
The landlord’s surveyor explained that adding insulation to the outside of the property could exacerbate the condensation inside the property and reiterated the need for a damp survey.
The external surveyor confirmed that it had previously carried out a damp survey at the property in 2018 or 2019 and provided its findings. The landlord commented on the findings in the report and noted that it did not highlight any defects with the structure of the property and that the damp was as a result of condensation. The landlord acknowledged that the report referred to a previous survey and questioned whether there was a need for a third survey, or if it could carry out damp treatment as a goodwill gesture for the resident.
In response to this suggestion, it was noted that whilst additional ventilation units could resolve the condensation, the resident had previously remarked that the property was cold and that she did not want additional ventilation in the property.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord concluded that given the 2019 surveyor’s report and the indication that the property was structurally sound, insulation did not appear to be a cost-effective solution to the problem.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 October 2021, stating that she desperately needed the property insulated as two of her sons suffered with lung conditions and she was worried about their health. She highlighted that the weather was turning cold, and she wanted a resolution as quickly as possible.
On 28 October 2021, an internal email showed that the landlord had raised a job to install an air vent filter on the ceiling in the upstairs landing to help combat mould in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2021, to express her disappointment with the solution that had been offered. She explained that according to the previous survey, the property had no insulation and that one of the recommendations was to fit external wall insulation. The resident explained that there were vents in every room in the property and they did not prevent mould from re-occurring. She said that the property was cold and that one of her sons slept in her bed to keep warm at night. She added that herself and her children were constantly ill as a result of the mould and the property being so cold. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two.
Internally, the landlord noted that it should have done more for the resident since she submitted her complaint in July 2021 and given that the previous survey highlighted that there was no insulation at the property questioned whether it should explore the possibility of external wall insulation.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one closure letter on 8 November 2021. The letter confirmed that it had contacted her on 15 July 2021 regarding her complaint. The letter set out that:
1. The surveyor who had attended the property in 2019 was no longer working with the landlord, but that a new surveyor had visited the property on 18 August 2021.
2. There were unrelated repairs identified during the visit and that works orders had been raised.
3. The surveyor inspected the damp and suggested instructing a damp specialist.
4. The resident explained that the previous surveyor had advised that the whole property would need insulating.
5. The landlord obtained and reviewed a copy of the survey completed in September 2019. The landlord concluded that carrying out insulation work could create more condensation in the property and that the best approach would be to arrange for a company specialising in mechanical products to attend and install a unit to create more ventilation in the property.
6. A works order had been raised for a positive ventilation unit and that an appointment made to install it in the property on 8 November 2021.
7. It was in the process of developing a schedule to combat the mould in the property.
8. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding additional ventilation units in the property.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was disappointed with the response and that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two. It advised the resident that the lead time for acknowledging stage two complaints could be up to 15 days.
The landlord’s internal notes showed that the resident escalated the complaint to stage two on the grounds that she was not happy with the approach being taken by the landlord to address the mould in the property. She believed that adding additional ventilation would only exacerbate the already cold property. The resident explained that she wanted the landlord to act on the recommendation in the 2019 survey which proposed external wall insulation as an option.
On 20 January 2022, landlord’s internal notes showed it had contacted the resident by telephone to apologise for the delay in logging her stage two complaint. During the conversation the landlord confirmed its understanding of the complaint and asked the resident whether there had been any updates since November 2021. The resident stated that she had refused to have the ventilation system installed as the property already had ventilation in every room. She explained that she had been previously assured that ventilation would resolve the mould issue, but in her opinion had made the situation worse, as the property was even colder. The resident added that she wanted the property insulated as had been previously suggested. The landlord confirmed it would send an email acknowledging her stage two complaint, which it did that day, and would also provide details of its insurance company so the resident could claim for damages if so required.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord sent an internal email to its procurement team requesting a list of contractors able to complete external wall insulation. The email explained that the resident had been experiencing mould issues since 2017 and that it had not been resolved despite various visits. The email stated that the landlord was assessing whether to carry out external wall insulation and ventilation in the loft as per the surveyor’s suggestion in 2019.
The landlord updated the resident in an email on 26 January 2022. It advised the resident it was in the process of organising quotes for external wall insulation as per the previous report, with a view to the work being carried out as soon as possible. It explained that it would keep the resident updated.
There was some confusion between the resident and the landlord in respect of whether insulation would be added to the property’s external or internal walls. The landlord subsequently discussed the need for the insulation and decided that given the nature of the work required, the landlord would need to check that the property was suitable for external wall insulation.
Further internal discussions took place on 5 February 2022, following a visit to the property. It was noted that the 9-inch-thick external walls were sufficient to contain the heat within the property. It noted that there was moderate damp and mould to the ground floor and in the corner of the back room, where there was a fish tank, and in the bedrooms. The landlord noted that external insulation could be expensive and that it should consider the option of getting a damp specialist to provide a quote for the installation of a ventilation unit. The landlord eventually decided to arrange for another external surveyor to investigate the damp and mould. It updated the resident on 11 February 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord later the same day to advise that the external surveyor had inspected the property that day. She explained that he had said the report would be ready the following week and that he noted that there was no rising damp and that there were low moisture readings. She also asked the landlord to provide a date for the work to start.
On 16 February, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was 20 working days from the date of her stage two acknowledgement. It apologised it had not made as much progress as it would have liked and explained that it had attached a formal 20-day letter outlining the actions until that point. It added that if the resident were happy for the complaint to remain open the landlord would continue to update her with progress of the actions. Alternatively, if she were unhappy with the progress, it would close the complaint and the resident could escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident confirmed that she was happy for the complaint to remain open.
The attached letter stated:
1. The following issues remained unresolved:
  1. Damp and mould issues at the property
  2. Request for insulation to be installed to address the issue of mould, rather than the suggested ventilation system.
  3. Outstanding repair to manhole cover in garden
  4. Damage to replacement bathroom door
2. At stage one it was concluded that the best way to resolve the damp and mould would be to install a positive ventilation system to encourage air movement within the property.
3. The resident was unhappy with the suggestion to add additional ventilation.
4. The maintenance team were organising quotes for external wall insulation but had also raised concerns regarding planning and the specification of the insulation, and so had arranged for another survey to take place.
5. The surveyor’s report had not been received, but as soon as it was it would be reviewed, and the resident advised of the best way forward.
6. The landlord had not made as much progress as it would have liked in relation to her complaint and there were still outstanding actions to complete before it could close the complaint.
A week later the resident contacted the landlord for an update on progress. The landlord responded that it had not yet received the survey, but that as soon as it did it would consider the information alongside the previous surveys.
The landlord notified the resident on 9 March 2022 that it had received the survey but had not had an opportunity to review its contents. A week later the resident contacted the landlord again for an update. The landlord responded that the report was still being reviewed.
On 21 March, the landlord spoke with the resident to advise that it would proceed with the works as set out in the most recent survey. Stating that it would carry out a full damp and mould treatment and install a ventilation unit to ensure the property would be free from damp and mould following completion of the works.
The resident was disappointed with this suggestion and was adamant that ventilation would not help. She stated that she had been led to believe that the landlord was getting a quote for the insulation works.
The following day, an internal email showed that the landlord acknowledged that its decision would need to be explained clearly to the resident and suggested visiting the property to speak with the resident in person. It suggested that it could propose the use of data loggers to understand humidity in the house, but to do this it would need to ensure the resident understood the impact of not heating or ventilating the property and its correlation with condensation.
Then on 25 March 2022, the landlord confirmed in an internal email that following its review of the findings in the survey, it would not be progressing with the insulation work.
The survey confirmed the property as a two storey, two receptions, three-bedroom detached house of traditional 1930s build, with UPVC double glazing and gas central heating, and radiators throughout. It stated that the property was occupied by five children, two adults, three dogs, one cat and various aquariums and heated tanks. At the time of the inspection the windows in each of the rooms were open and the resident stated that she had recently washed and decorated the worst affected walls. The survey did not find any signs of damp in the property but noted mould growth in both reception rooms downstairs and in bedroom one and bedroom three. The survey found no structural defects, other than a blocked air brick to the rear of the property. The survey concluded:
1. There was little or no insulation to the solid brick walls.
2. All rooms had openable double-glazed windows.
3. There was no damp or water penetration to the building.
4. The mould growth was caused by high levels of condensation.
5. Overcrowding appeared to be a major contributory factor to what appeared to be high levels of condensation in the property.
6. The pets and aquarium added to the build-up of excessive moisture.
7. Some of the rooms had outdated mechanical ventilation systems, which may not have had the capacity to deal with the high levels of moisture.
The survey recommended installing new mechanical ventilation systems with suitable sensors.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint. The response confirmed the reasons for the resident’s complaint and outlined the remedies suggested. In addition, it expanded on the findings in the surveyor’s report commissioned in 2019, which also highlighted that the property had little or no external wall insulation and found the cause of the mould to be condensation. The 2019 report made various recommendations to combat the condensation, which included heating, ventilation, dehumidifier/air handling unit installation and also offered external wall insulation as a viable solution.
The response detailed the actions taken following the escalation of the complaint to stage two and the reason another survey had been commissioned. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the most recent report and was satisfied with the recommendations presented, and consequently proposed a full mould treatment alongside improvement works to ventilation in the property. It also suggested actions the resident could take to reduce condensation including heating the property and leaving extractor fans operational for 20 to 30 minutes after use.
The landlord upheld its stage one response and confirmed that it did not agree that insulation was necessary.
It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and acknowledged and apologised that the resident had been led to believe that external wall insulation would have been installed. It accepted that communication had been poor and that there had been delays in the complaint handling process. In recognition of the poor service experienced, the landlord offered discretionary compensation equalling £335, calculated in line with its discretionary compensation policy:
1. £75.00 for the overall delay
2. £75.00 for the poor communication
3. £75.00 for the time and effort pursuing
4. £55.00 for the complaint handling failures
5. £55.00 for the service failure in providing incorrect information on the resolution to be provided.

Post complaints process

The landlord has advised this Service that works to install a ventilation unit in the property were completed in June 2022, and that all works it is intending to complete in relation to this complaint have been completed.
This Service acknowledges that the resident accepted the offer of compensation.
In recent correspondence with this Service, the resident advised that she no longer has fish tanks or a vivarium in the property, but that the mould has returned. She added that since having the ventilation unit installed in June 2022, she had not had any contact from the landlord to find out if it was working as intended.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations and policies

The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including outside walls.
Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation ‘in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation. Section 11(1)(a) of the same act implies a covenant “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes)”.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a covenant “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes)”.
The landlord’s property management policy states that it is committed to ensuring its homes are safe, decent, and properly maintained. It states that it provides efficient and responsive services to its customers and invests in its properties. The landlord maintains that it works towards a planned approach to maintenance to reduce reactive repairs and associated budgets and deliver more efficient maintenance services.
It states that it takes a ‘right first time’ approach and completes repairs within pre-defined timescales from the date they are first reported. This Service has not seen the timescales within which the landlord aims to complete repairs.
It also states that where repairs or other works have not been completed satisfactorily or within pre-defined timescales, the landlord will offer compensation in line with Right to Repair schemes and its own compensation policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not mention how many complaint stages there are. However, it states that it conforms to the principles set out by this Service. The policy does not state how quickly the landlord will respond to complaints, but states that responses are provided in a ‘timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman Services.’
The complaints policy also states that the landlord may make discretionary compensation payments but that this is not automatic, even when mistakes have been made.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
Evidence provided, showed that the landlord first acknowledged the resident’s concerns of mould in her property in 2019. It took the correct approach and arranged investigative work to establish the cause of the mould.
However, no further action was taken following completion of the survey in September 2019 and the landlord has not provided a reason for this. This Service acknowledges that in its update letter on 11 August 2021, the landlord explained that the maintenance department had undergone a restructure, then in its stage one response mentioned that the surveyor who had been dealing with the resident’s report of mould was no longer at the organisation.
Between 9 February 2021 and 8 July 2021, when the resident submitted a formal complaint, the resident contacted the landlord six times for an update on progress but failed to receive a response from the landlord. The landlord’s property management policy states that it takes a ‘right first time’ approach and aims to complete repairs within pre-defined timescales. However, it is clear from the evidence provided that it did not get things right first time. It was unreasonable that the resident had to pursue a response for several months and also unreasonable that a response was only prompted following the submission of a complaint.
Evidence showed that the landlord spent several months deciding on the best approach to dealing with the mould. In August 2021, the landlord’s own surveyor visited the property but given the time of year, could not clearly assess the cause of the mould. Then in October 2021, the landlord became re-acquainted with the survey it had commissioned two years earlier. The survey clearly set out the cause of the mould was condensation and gave possible solutions. Yet the landlord continued to deliberate over the best course of action. Having raised concerns about mould in her property, the resident had a reasonable expectation that she would receive a response. Whilst some information was provided at stage one. In general, the communication from the landlord was poor and the resident was left frustrated that, between escalating her complaint to stage two on 8 November 2021 and 20 January 2022, when her complaint was acknowledged, she received little or no information from the landlord in respect of dealing with the mould.
Whilst general information about its planned review of its communication process clearly, in the landlord’s view, adequately provided its response, the resident was left frustrated as he had received no acknowledgement that the issues had raised were causing, he and other residents difficulty and no substantive information about what the landlord was doing to address these concerns.
The landlord suggested additional ventilation in the property, which the resident refused as she stated that there was already ventilation in each of the rooms adding to the cold temperatures in the property.
The landlord deliberated over the best course of action, then in February 2022 the landlord’s own surveyor visited the property followed by an external surveyor, who also attended the property the same month. It was not acceptable that the resident had to wait several months for the landlord to decide how best to proceed. This was of detriment to the resident and her family who had to endure mould in their property for longer than they should have, as well as the time and inconvenience to the resident pursuing a response.
As set out in the spotlight on damp and mould report, where specialist surveys are required, landlords should ensure the need is identified early on and that work orders are progressed in a timely manner. Landlord’s should also highlight instances where using an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor may be useful to avoid any concerns the resident may have of bias and obtain parity with the housing conditions pre-action protocol. The outcome of these surveys, and any other inspection at the resident’s property, should be routinely shared with, and explained to the resident. This includes being clear where on any recommendations or actions that are not going to be followed up and the rationale for this to aid the resident’s understanding. The landlord failed to meet best practice and deliver on these recommendations.
The conclusion of the survey was the same as the one commissioned by the landlord in 2019 and offered similar solutions to preventing the mould. Unfortunately, it took the landlord 13 months from the time the resident contacted the landlord for an update on progress in February 2021, until the landlord finally made a decision as to the best course of action in March 2022 and a further three months for the landlord to complete the works. This caused the resident significant distress and was of detriment to her family who had to endure another year of mould and condensation. In addition, the resident spent months pursuing the landlord for a response to her concerns. It is not reasonable that the resident had a protracted wait for a conclusion to the issues reported.
It is not clear to this Service what the landlord intended when it suggested providing a damp course as a good will gesture, but the landlord is reminded that it is responsible for the structure and maintenance of the property and as set out in the spotlight report on damp and mould report must ensure that it treats all reports of damp and mould as a priority and adopt a proactive approach in dealing such reports. An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess against the afore-mentioned spotlight report.
The landlord has an obligation to follow the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) which is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is around 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks for the elderly and below 10°C carries a great risk of hypothermia. Therefore, given the resident raised concerns about cold, the landlord should have investigated whether the temperature in the property was adequate or not, under the relevant regulations. If the landlord was not in a position to carry out appropriate investigative work, it should have directed the resident to the local authority environmental health team, that would have been able to carry out the necessary inquiries. This Service acknowledges that the landlord made reference to the use of data loggers, but there is no evidence to suggest that this was explained to the resident or actioned. In doing so would have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was actively listening to her concerns and was willing to take further investigative steps to collect the relevant data. This would have informed works to be agreed and explained the position clearly, based upon evidence to the resident. This was a missed opportunity and a reasonable step the landlord should have taken.
In its final response, the landlord reaffirmed that the survey completed in February 2022 found no signs of rising or penetrating damp and did not recommend insulation. The landlord set out the actions it would take to eradicate the mould in the property, which included new mechanical ventilation units and a full mould treatment.
In addition, the landlord apologised and accepted that its communication with the resident had been poor. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered compensation for its failures to the sum of £335, in line with its compensation policy. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord apologised for its failures and offered financial redress, it does not reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident. The resident was left with mould in her property whilst she pursued the landlord for a solution to the problem for 13 months. Consequently, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s decision not to insulate the property.

The survey commissioned in 2019, explained that the property was single brick construction and had little or no insulation. Following on from that, the resident maintained that she had been told by the landlord that it would obtain quotes for the property to be insulated.
The resident contacted the landlord in February 2021, with regard the insulation but it took the landlord until July 2021 to acknowledge this contact. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord offered to insulate the property in 2019 or 2020.
In October 2021, when the landlord became reacquainted with the survey from 2019, evidence showed that it discussed whether insulating the property would resolve the mould.
The landlord concluded that given that the cause of mould was condensation, insulating the property could exacerbate the issues and suggested that additional ventilation would help eradicate the mould in the property. It acknowledged that the survey completed in February 2022, noted that the mechanical ventilation in the property was old and potentially did not have the capacity to deal with the moisture. The landlord concluded that the best course of action was to provide updated ventilation to the property, which it did in June 2022.
The landlord took note of the survey completed in 2019 and did consider adding external wall insulation to the property as a remedy to the mould. Whilst it was unfortunate that the resident was led to believe that her property would be insulated, the landlord was within its rights to re-evaluate and accept the recommendations from the survey carried out in February 2022, and proceed with additional ventilation in the property. Consequently, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to insulate the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for landlords to enable them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. All members of the Scheme are expected to self-assess against it.
Whilst it was apparent from the evidence provided, that the landlord operated a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy does not clearly set out the complaint stages or timeframes for responding. Section 2.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in operation at the time of this complaint, stated that a landlord’s complaint policy must “detail the number of stages involved and what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding”. It is therefore not sufficient for a landlord to state that a response will be provided in a “timely manner”.
Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint within a day of having received it, it took 83 working days for the landlord to send its stage one response. The landlord was aware that it had bypassed its timescale for a response on 4 August 2021, but waited a further week before providing the resident with an update. Whilst this Service acknowledges that there may be occasions when the landlord may need additional time to respond to the resident, this should be no more than 10 working days without good reason and the resident should be advised of the delay. Landlord’s must not be delaying a response in order to complete repairs. Nor should landlords be delaying a response to a complaint because of annual leave.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 8 November 2021 and the landlord advised her that it was taking approximately 15 days to acknowledge stage two complaints. As set out in the complaints Code, complaints should be acknowledged within five working days and for stage two complaints the resident should receive a response within 20 working days. Whilst the landlord can extend the timescale for a response at stage two, it should not exceed a further 10 working days and it should be with good reason. It took the landlord 51 working days, until 20 January 2022, to acknowledge the resident’s stage two complaint. Then a further 46 working days to provide a final response. It is noted that the landlord contacted the resident to request an extension for providing a response, however, it does not appear that there was a good reason to do so. The landlord took a total of 97 days to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint. This is unreasonable and far exceeds the 20 working days set out in the complaints code. The resident was held within the complaint process for an extended period of time causing distress and inconvenience and without an agreed resolution. As a Consequence, she was unable to refer her complaint to this Service.
The evidence suggests that the landlord delayed the response as it was undecided what action it should have taken in respect of the reports of mould. It is important that landlord’s do not allow complaints about repairs to stay open indefinitely whilst waiting for them to be completed. This runs the risk of resident’s being blocked from escalating their complaints should repairs continue to be delayed.
The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
The complaint should have been resolved at the earliest possible opportunity and it was not appropriate, timely or in accordance with Ombudsman’s guidance to only issue its final response once the surveyor’s report had been received. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Whilst the email accompanying the landlord’s final response sets out that the offer of compensation is without prejudice and acceptance of it would not prevent the resident from escalating the complaint externally. Its Compliments and complaints policy states that ‘By agreeing the action plan to resolve the complaint and accepting compensation, customers are agreeing that the matter is resolved, and no further action will be taken’. A resident satisfying the criteria set out in section 3.2 of the jurisdiction guidance, has a statutory right to bring their complaints to the Ombudsman. This right cannot be denied by the landlord and is not lost even if the resident has accepted a payment of compensation from the landlord as ‘full and final’ settlement of their dispute before bringing the matter to us. This Service finds a suggestion of this type to be unreasonable and misleading. A recommendation has been made in respect of this.

The landlord’s record-keeping.

Evidence provided showed that the resident had made the landlord aware of the mould in the property from at least 2019, in addition she stated that a survey had been completed. However, during internal discussions held between August 2021 and October 2021, it became apparent that the landlord could not locate a copy of the survey that had been carried out in 2019. It was only when another survey was commissioned that the external surveyor pointed out that a survey had already been done and provided the landlord with a copy of the report.
Clear record keeping and management is essential in all aspects of housing management and although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it was apparent that not all records pre-dating the period of the complaint were available to the landlord.
In addition, evidence showed that the resident had told the landlord in a telephone conversation which pre-dated the time period covered in this report that she was disabled. The call handler noted the information. Yet when this Service requested information in relation to vulnerabilities, the landlord advised that it had none recorded on its system. This was not acceptable, and the landlord should take steps to ensure that information provided by a resident is appropriately recorded so that it is easily accessible to each area of the business, as required. This Service finds a service failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.
The spotlight on knowledge and information management report published by this Service in May 2023, provides useful information regarding the importance of good record keeping, and a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping in line with this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to insulate the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s record-keeping in the landlords handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to deal with the resident’s reports of mould in the property in a timely way consequently causing a detriment to the resident and her family who endured mould in the property for longer than they should have.
The landlord has shown that it considered the suggestion of external wall insulation but ultimately accepted the recommendation of a professional surveyor and proceeded with additional ventilation in the property.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s formal complaint within the timescale set out in the complaints code and failed to provide a clear indication within its policy of the appropriate timescales.
The landlord did not appropriately record information relating to the resident’s vulnerabilities and nor did it appear to have a system in place for retaining commissioned reports.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1535 which includes the £335 already accepted by the resident for the failings acknowledged in the stage two response and a further:
  1. £500 for the detriment caused to the resident for the delay in responding to her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble spent pursuing a response.
  3. £600 for the complaint handling and record-keeping failures highlighted in this report.
Self-assess against the spotlight on damp and mould report and demonstrate to this Service how it complies with the recommendations set out in the spotlight report.
Review its compliments and complaints policy and make any necessary amendments to ensure it clearly and explicitly sets out timescales for responses to complaints at both stages of the complaints process.
Contact the resident to discuss her concerns regarding the re-appearance of mould in the property and agree an inspection if required. Following inspection of the property the landlord must agree an action plan of any further works if necessary.
Provide, to this Service, evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns regarding the temperature in the property. If appropriate arrange for/ or signpost the resident to the relevant team to carry out investigative work to ensure the temperature in the property meets the relevant regulations.
It is not within the spirit of the complaints code to require the resident to agree that once compensation has been accepted the matter complained about has been resolved. This Service recommends that the landlord reviews its compensation policy to bring it in line with the complaints code.
This Service recommends that the landlord reviews its record keeping in line with the spotlight on knowledge and information report and consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy.