Hyde Housing Association Limited (202012164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012164

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 March 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp in her bedroom and living room;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner and the landlord’s records show that the tenancy commenced on 30 March 2012. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-level purpose-built block. The property has French doors to the bedroom and living room that lead out to a rear communal garden area.
The landlord has responsive repairs policies and procedures that show that it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of a property. It sets out that it will complete emergency repairs within four hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
The repairs policy shows that the resident is responsible for repairs to baths, internal walls, internal decorations and external doors in shared ownership flats.
The landlord’s website has a ‘homeowner responsibilities’ page that shows that residents are usually responsible for external doors and door frames but that the landlord is responsible for window frames.
The landlord’s website has a ‘damp, mould and condensation’ page that shows residents are responsible for controlling condensation using heating and ventilation but that the landlord is responsible if it is a result of ‘another underlying cause’.
The landlord has a complaints policy that shows it has a two-stage complaints process where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively. It adds that it is unlikely to investigate matters that occurred more than six months previously and that insurance claims are dealt with separately.
The landlord’s complaints policy shows that it may offer compensation where it has failed to meet its advertised standards. Its related compensation procedure sets out that claims for damage to property should be referred for consideration through insurance and that it can award compensation for loss of a room and distress and inconvenience caused to a resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s contact records show that the resident reported on 8 February 2018 that a carpet by her rear French door was getting soaked during rainfall. The landlord noted on 12 February 2018 that the property was outside of the defects period and that it would send a contractor. It recorded on 13 February 2018 that the resident was responsible for doors and windows but also noted that it told her on the same day that it was responsible for them.
The landlord recorded further reports from the resident about the French doors in mid-December 2018. It noted on 20 December 2018 that its leasehold team had advised that the door frames would be its responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 20 December 2018 as the resident reported water ingress through rear garden French doors; it recorded that the resident had suggested her baby was unwell because of damp and mould build up. The order was closed on 27 December 2018 with notes indicating that a trim and seal needed replacement.
A further repairs order was raised on 10 January 2019 for the French doors – the job was recorded as complete on 31 January 2019 with notes showing water testing was done with no obvious signs of ingress.
A defect analysis report was produced by a consultant surveyor in March 2019. It said that it was appointed to assess whether there was any defect to the rear cavity wall of the property that could be causing internal damp to adjacent walls. The report noted:
1. evidence of damp was observed around both sets of French doors with ‘mould growth around the plastered reveals and door heads at the time of inspection’
2. dampness had extended to the floor screed and the living room carpet was damp with historic staining to boxing on the rear living room wall
3. ‘the property felt humid throughout, with evidence of condensation damage to the north facing surfaces’
4. both French door sets were aesthetically sound and appeared fully sealed but water tests led to a visible damp patch to the bedroom and more damp to the living room carpet
5. the presence of French doors instead of windows meant that radiators had not been placed against colder external walls but cavities were fully insulated with no abnormalities found and the damp proof course was working as designed
6. overall, ‘the issues with damp and mould appeared to relate more to condensation and potential penetrating damp/trapped moisture around the French door sets’
7. it recommended a specialist survey of the French doors, the installation of a mechanical extractor fan, sealing a hole by the gas meter on a rear wall and further monitoring before remedial works (decorations, skirting board and new carpeting) were completed.
A repairs order was raised on 21 May 2019 for the two sets of French doors to be overhauled or reported on. The landlord’s notes show that a quote for replacement of the French doors was received on 10 June 2019.
The resident chased progress with the landlord on 19 June 2019; the landlord noted on 28 June 2019 that it had informed the resident that it would arrange for the renewal of the French door sets and any associated remedial works due to damage. Subsequent feedback from the resident indicates that the door renewal works were completed in August 2019.
The landlord noted on 20 November 2019 that there was a condensation issue which would not usually be its responsibility to remedy but it was taking action given the likely delay that could be caused by conversations with the National House Building Council (NHBC).
The landlord recorded on 28 November 2019 that it had received a property condition complaint. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 17 December 2019. It recommended that the resident make an insurance claim about the damaged carpet and advised that an inspection report would be obtained, after which the resident would need to liaise with the NHBC.
The landlord sent a complaint holding letter to the resident on 30 December 2019 and noted that it discussed the complaint with the resident on 7 January 2020.
The landlord recorded that the resident chased the complaint and a surveyor’s appointment on 21 January 2020. It sent a complaint holding letter to her on 28 January 2020 and offered an update on 7 February 2020 to advise that arrangements were being made for surveyor inspections.
The landlord sent a complaint holding letter to the resident on 11 February 2020, advising that an inspection was due to happen that week.
The landlord noted that the resident reported on 25 February 2020 that the mould problem in the property had worsened and spread to woodwork despite her attempts to wash it. It added that it told the resident on 26 February 2020 that it had received a surveyor’s report and would look into the possibility of installing a heat recovery unit (to reduce moisture and condensation) and wrote to her on 27 February 2020 to advise it was reviewing reports from its contractors.
A repair order was raised on 28 February 2020 for inspection of a door. The order was completed on 17 March 2020 with a note showing no faults were found to the doors and the issue was more likely related to the damp proof course or drains.
The landlord sent a complaint holding letter to the resident on 11 March 2020, advising that it was ‘awaiting the relevant quotes and confirmation of what the next steps will be in terms of installing the heating ventilation unit’.
A repair order was raised on 17 March 2020 for a CCTV survey of the rear drains – it recorded on 26 May 2020 that no defects were located to the drains.
The landlord issued complaint holding letters and spoke to the resident on 25 March 2020, 29 April 2020, 2 June 2020, 24 June 2020, 25, June 2020, 7 July 2020, 29 July 2020, 23 August 2020, 9 September 2020 and 7 October 2020. It variously advised that Covid-19 meant that there were delays in its ability to progress repairs (April-July 2020), new French doors had been fitted the previous year but this had not resolved the condensation issue (June 2020), it would arrange surveyors to attend her property (July 2020), it had referred the matter to the original builders (August 2020) and its defect team was looking into the issue (September-October 2020).
Repair orders were raised on 8-9 October 2020 for the landlord to undertake water tests on both sets of French doors and complete a condensation report. It noted on 12 October 2020 that the bathroom extractor fan was insufficient and faulty but the kitchen cooker hood was working. The resident advised the landlord on 14 October 2020 that the water test had indicated that the leak through her doors was still a problem.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 October 2020, advising that it would carry out repairs to her doors and a contractor would also inspect. It added that it would offer a further update by 31 October 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 October 2020. It said that it was waiting for a damp survey and water test to be concluded and hoped to offer an update by 28 November 2020 (it offered a similar update on 28 November 2020, advising that it would contact her again by 25 December 2020).
The resident advised the landlord on 27 November 2020 that the doors that had been renewed in August 2019 had been damaged by water and black mould and that a contractor had removed a section of the door frame, leaving a draft. She provided photographs that showed black mould spotting in the area immediately around the lower section of the doors.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it suspected on 2 December 2020 that the problem was residual humidity in the property and it chased contractors on the ventilation works.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 10 December 2020. It concluded that:
1. it had inspected the French doors and contractors would return on 13 January 2021 to install ventilation fans and conduct a mould wash
2. it had found a high level of humidity in the property which was causing condensation and that the French doors were contributing to this problem
3. it had changed the French doors in 2019, checked the ‘cavity and trays’ for the property, liaised with its defects team and conducted drain investigations (which came back clear)
4. it had attended in March 2020 to seal and adjust the French doors but its planned check of a neighbour’s doors was suspended due to Covid-19
5. it had completed a damp report on 26 October 2020 which found high levels of condensation and recommended upgrading an existing unit in an external wall and installing wall mounted ventilators to the living room, kitchen and bedroom plus a mould wash
6. it had replaced the bathroom fan (to assist moisture reduction) and water tested the French doors (the second test of which on 18 November 2020 identified no signs of shrinkage or gaps in the seals)
7. it had agreed to recommendations made in a report of 4 November 2020 and would complete works as a gesture of goodwill given the problem was with the design of the French doors
8. it gave general advice on avoiding condensation
9. it apologised for poor customer service and said it would review how long it had taken to reach a complaint outcome
10. it offered to decorate the bedroom and replace the bedroom carpet as a gesture of goodwill given it was not of the view that there had been any service failure.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 January 2021. She queried if the French doors should be replaced by a window, advised that information in the complaint response was inaccurate and that she had reported the damp problem since 2017, asked what the outcome of the cavity wall inspection was, queried why the defect could not be pursued given there were still two years left on the new build guarantee and disputed that the landlord had resolved water ingress through the doors. She accepted the bedroom decorations and carpeting offer but asked it to also renew carpets to the living room and hallway.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 January 2021. It apologised for any inaccurate information in the complaint response and said that the resident would need to approach the NHBC if she had concerns about the design of the block. It added that it had only gone back six months prior to a complaint being made, in line with its complaints policy, and confirmed that no cavity wall abnormalities had been found and contractors were due to attend on 13 January 20221.
The resident made a report to the landlord on 2 February 2021 that so much water had got into the property over the weekend that a skirting board had fallen away. The landlord noted on this date that it had logged a stage two complaint request.
The resident submitted a new online complaint form on 17 February 2021 about the water ingress issue. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and advised the resident that it was waiting to hear back about the complaint escalation request.
The resident reported to the landlord on 19 February 2021 that contractors had attended and removed a section of wall, finding water within the wall and in a crack at the bottom of the door.
The landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 22 February 2021. It said that there appeared to be water tracking into her property from a location other than the doors, a joint visit would be arranged with the surveying team manager and it expected to provide a complaint response by 22 March 2021.
The resident exchanged emails with the landlord during late February-early March 2021 as the resident chased it for an appointment before its surveyor attended on 8 March 2021.
The landlord’s internal emails of 12 March 2021 show that it had inspected the property recently and that there may be ‘issues around the door reveals that could be contributing to the localised condensation of the French door’ and that ‘the bedroom appears to be worse’. It added that it would install humidistat fans the following week and that it could be worthwhile removing one of the door units to check there were no problems.
The resident raised concerns on 15-16 March 2021 about the quality of extractor fan works and the lack of contact on her complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor recorded on 17 March 2021 that the condensation was localised to the window areas.
The resident chased the landlord twice in late March 2021, noting that the bathroom extractor fan works had taken a few appointments and its surveyor had still not diagnosed the cause of the problem.
The landlord’s internal emails of 25 March 2021 show that it had visited the property again and recorded that the resident said the condensation was improved since new ventilation was installed. It added that it had exposed a section of the concrete floor by the bedroom French doors and that it would monitor this – it confirmed this approach in writing to the resident on 26 March 2021.
The landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 30 March 2021 – it said it now expected to respond by 27 April 2021 as it was monitoring an exposed area of screed before deciding how to proceed.
The resident advised the landlord on 1 April 2021 that the condensation issue had improved (and that there had been no water ingress albeit the weather had been fine).
The landlord noted on 19 April 2021 that it had spoken to the resident again and she had reported no water ingress but she wished to hold off remedial works given the lack of rainfall. Similar feedback was received from her in early May 2021 too.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2021. This concluded that:
1. it had now done everything it could to assist with the condensation issues in the property and there was no evidence to support the resident’s concerns that the French doors were allowing water ingress
2. it had improved ventilation in the property so a window (instead of, or in addition to, the French doors) was unnecessary
3. there were no recommendations in the most recent report of a need for an additional radiator or a new bedroom window
4. no problems had been identified through the borehole inspection of the cavity walls
5. it had submitted a latent defect claim that was rejected by the developers
6. a water test to the French doors did not demonstrate water ingress and the problem with moisture by the doors was due to condensation which had improved since the additional ventilation measures were taken
7. its surveying team leader would work with the resident to make good (following removal of screed by the French doors) and complete minor repairs
8. it signposted the resident to make a claim on her insurance, or through its own insurance team, for damage to personal belongings and carpets
9. it awarded £100 compensation ‘to make up for continued delays’ albeit it decided that it could not see that it had failed in the service it had provided.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2021, providing a photograph that showed an untidy area of exposed flooring and cracked plastering by a French door. She added on 4-13 June 2021 that she did not accept the compensation offer of £100 given the distress she and her daughter experienced over four years, her bedroom had been ruined, it had not replaced her bedroom carpet as it claimed and she had been unable to sell her property. She reported that her bath had been destroyed by condensation and her carpets should be renewed throughout the property.
The resident approached this Service in June 2021 on the grounds that the landlord had not completed the making good works or replaced the carpet as promised and she wanted it to reimburse her for half her rent since 2017, carpet throughout the property (as the door heights were now incompatible with the carpets, leaving large gaps), renew her bath (that had rusted due to bad condensation), decorate her bedroom, apply damp paint to the ceiling and waive any fees when she came to sell the property.
The landlord issued a follow-up compensation review response to the resident on 9 July 2021. It apologised for previously indicating that the bedroom carpet had been replaced and confirmed it would raise repairs to check the French doors were insulated then complete remedial works to them, re-decorate and re-carpet the bedroom, renew the living room carpet, apply a hardwood threshold to the French door there and renew the hallway carpet. It added that its final compensation offer was £300 and reiterated that the living room carpet and bedroom decorations were being carried out as a gesture of goodwill.
A repairs order was raised on 13 July 2021 for replacement of carpets throughout the property, re-screeding of an area by a patio door and bedroom decorations; the job was recorded as complete on 8 September 2021.
After a report from the resident to the landlord on 9 September 2021 that decorations had not been completed to a good standard, she followed up on 29 September 2021, confirming that remedial works had since been completed on 20 September 2021.
The resident confirmed to this Service in December 2021 that works were completed but that she was seeking a substantial compensation increase, possibly by way of a rent reduction.
The resident reported to this Service in February 2022 that the landlord had damaged her bathroom and left her with a smaller bath when it attempted to renew it.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
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.

Damp

The resident initially made reports of water ingress through the French doors at her property in February 2018. The landlord’s repairs policy indicates that the resident would have been responsible for works to the doors as the shared owner of the property. However, its advice to the resident was contradictory and it appears that it was unclear as to whether it should attend to investigate the problem or not. There is no evidence that it offered any clarity to the resident on this point from February 2018 until December 2018 when it began to take steps to diagnose the fault.
The resident made consistent reports again from December 2018 that there was water ingress through her French doors. She added that there was a damp issue (including wet carpets and mould build up) and mentioned that there was ill health in her household as a result. Given the landlord’s responsibility to check there were no underlying issues at the property causing damp, it was appropriate that it conducted a water test to the doors in January 2019 and appointed a consultant to inspect in March 2019.
The March 2019 inspection report noted possible water ingress through the French doors and a problem with humidity levels in the property that was causing condensation dampness. It recommended further specialist testing of the French doors and ventilation improvements to the property.
The French doors were subsequently inspected and renewed but this work does not appear to have been completed until August 2019. Although the renewal of two sets of doors were significant works, this represented an inappropriate delay of a few months given the landlord was aware of damage being caused to the resident’s decorations and her concerns about her daughter’s health.
The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it progressed the ventilation improvements that the consultant had recommended, even after it decided in November 2019 that attempting progress through the NHBC was not the best approach. By March 2020, when the impact of Covid-19 began to cause inevitable delays, the landlord had still failed to progress any ventilation works. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to conduct its own inspections of the property to rule out any drainage issue and establish what measures could be taken to reduce condensation, it was inappropriate that little progress had been made 12 months after the consultant inspection.
This Service accepts that March 2020 and the following weeks was a difficult period for landlords, many of whom were only completing emergency works due to lockdown restrictions. However, it is inappropriate that it took another 12 months for the landlord to complete humidistat ventilation works to the resident’s property in March 2021. The landlord has indicated that it referred the matter to the property developer as a defect but that this was unsuccessful. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to explore this recourse, it apparently did not progress works once this route failed and the only assistance it offered the resident in the meantime was a mould wash in January 2021 despite her regular reports of further damage being caused to her decorations, belongings and the relatively new French doors.
Once the additional ventilation works were completed in March 2021, it was reasonable for the landlord and resident to agree to monitor whether this reduced the damp problem over the following two months, particularly given there were still conflicting opinions as to whether water ingress through the French doors remained a contributing factor.
The landlord’s decision to complete remedial works to the resident’s decorations, carpets and bath (in addition to the making good to the French doors and flooring) was reasonable and demonstrated it was resolution-focused as these would not usually be its responsibility according to its shared ownership repairs procedures. However, once the landlord agreed to this and the resident asked it to progress the works (at the point the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in May 2021), it should have conducted them promptly to minimise ongoing inconvenience to the resident. Most of the remedial works were not completed until September 2021 which represented another inappropriate delay of three months beyond the timescale the landlord’s repairs policy sets out for non-emergency works. Further, reports from the resident indicate that there were problems as recently as February 2022 in completion of bath replacement works (a recommendation is made below in this regard).
There is no evidence that the resident lost use of either the bedroom or living room of her property and that the landlord should therefore have reimbursed her for a proportion of her rent. Indeed, the landlord’s inspection findings as recently as March 2021 established that the condensation dampness was limited to the areas around the French doors in both rooms. However, the resident did experience uncertainty as to the cause of the damp problem from early 2018 to early 2021 and reported that her living conditions were impacted during this period.
In summary, the landlord offered contradictory advice when it initially considered the resident’s reports of water ingress through her French doors in February 2018. It agreed that the works were its responsibility when it reviewed this in December 2018 and received a report in March 2019 that established high humidity levels causing condensation dampness and potential faults to the French doors. However, it delayed unreasonably up to August 2019 in renewing the French doors, contributed to delays up to March 2021 in resolving the humidity issue and failed to promptly complete promised remedial works from May 2021.

Complaint handling

The landlord noted in late November 2019 that it would consider the resident’s concerns about its handling of her damp and water ingress reports through its complaints process and issued an acknowledgement letter accordingly in December 2019. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the matter for consideration through its complaints process and to signpost the resident to make insurance claims for any damaged possessions.
However, there were extensive delays throughout the complaints process in the landlord offering substantive responses. It should have responded at stage one within 10 working days but it did not do so until December 2020, 12 months after logging the complaint. Although the landlord did offer progress updates to the resident on at least a monthly basis, these were sometimes limited and often failed to demonstrate that the landlord was actively reviewing its handling of the damp and water ingress report.
The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction in January 2021 and highlighted some factual errors within the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord subsequently apologised for any errors but it was inappropriate that it took it 12 months to respond to the complaint and that when it eventually did so, the response contained inaccuracies.
The landlord should have offered its final complaint response to the resident within 20 working days of the January 2021 complaint escalation but it failed to do so until 28 May 2021, more than four months later. Although the landlord did provide updates during February-March 2021, this delay was again inappropriate and meant that it took a total of 17 months for the resident’s complaint to be considered through its complaints process instead of the one month that its complaints policy outlines.
The landlord apologised on several occasions for delays in the complaints process and said in its initial complaint response that it would review why it had taken so long. It also awarded £300 compensation which, as it did not conclude it was responsible for any service failures on the substantive matter, was likely intended to recognise the complaint handling delays. Given the consistent updates offered by the landlord throughout the periods of delay limited the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase responses, this level of compensation represented appropriate redress for the service failure identified. This compensation award, in combination with its apologies and assurance that it would learn lessons from its handling of the complaint, demonstrated that the landlord acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, there were significant delays by the landlord at both stages of the complaints process and its initial complaint response contained some inaccurate information. However, it maintained regular contact with the resident during the periods of delay and offered sufficient redress to the resident for its service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress and damp in her bedroom and living room.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in diagnosing and resolving faults to the resident’s property that caused damp to her bedroom and living room between February 2018 and May 2021. It also took too long to complete remedial works to her property that it had agreed to carry out as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord delayed unreasonably by 16 months in responding to the resident’s complaint. However, its apologies, assurances that it would learn lessons and compensation award were fair given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £900 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the maladministration in its handling of her reports of water ingress and damp in her bedroom and living room.
The landlord to create an action plan to ensure that it is able to promptly diagnose and remedy condensation dampness at its properties in future.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to post-inspect the bathroom works that the resident raised concerns about in February 2022; it should write to her within a week of the inspection to confirm the outcome and explain how it intends to put right the repairs.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 that it offered in its compensation review follow-up response in July 2021.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.