Hyde Housing Association Limited (202103910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103910

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 August 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 damp in her living room and kitchen;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 8 May 2017. The landlord has described the property as a one-bedroom ground floor flat; the flat is within a house conversion.
During the course of this complaint, the resident has advised the landlord that she has medical conditions such as myeloma and diabetes and was ill with pneumonia. The landlord’s records show that it has recorded that the resident has mobility problems.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and outside of the property in repair, including drains, gutters, pipes and outside walls (painting and decorating if needed). It is also required to repair “certain parts” of the inside and keep all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity and water heating in working order. It adds that it “will do repairs within a reasonable time of you telling us about a problem”.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that shows that:
1. it will prioritise repairs into an ‘emergency’ (examples of this are loss of electric or heating and these will be attended to within four hours) or an ‘anytime’ (to be attended to within 20 working days) category;
2. “pre inspections should be used as an investigative tool to identify what work is required”, “post inspections should be used as a quality checking mechanism for works that are carried out by our contractor” and it may conduct “mid-flight inspections” when necessary;
3. residents are actively responsible for preventing significant amounts of condensation and should take steps such as ensuring adequate heating and ventilation to the property but if there is a structural fault or unattended repair, the landlord should raise this as a responsive repair.
The landlord has a complaints and compensation policy that shows that:
1. it may refuse to consider complaints about a matter that occurred more than six months previously but discretion will be used if there is evidence of a long-standing or continuing problem;
2. it has a two-stage complaints procedure where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively;
3. it may make commitments at the end of the complaints process which fall outside its complaints response times and “will be managed separately to the complaint process”;
4. it may award compensation where it has failed to deliver a service to its advertised standard.
During the course of this complaint, the resident’s daughter has sometimes represented her due to ill health. Any correspondence from, or to, the resident’s daughter will be referred to as being from, or to, the resident for the purposes of this investigation.

Summary of Events

The resident has consistently advised that there has been a damp problem at her property since she moved in. This investigation is focused on events that occurred in the year prior to the resident submitting a complaint but the landlord’s earlier records demonstrate that:
1. the resident reported damp and dirty front walls, a blocked gutter and paint chipping from the walls in June 2017;
2. the resident submitted an online form in September 2017, advising that the building needed to be in a “watertight condition” and referred to the need for regular overhaul and repair of “brickwork, stone work, jointing and render”;
3. the resident reported a leak into her living room from the flat above in February 2018 and the landlord noted that it was arranging access with the neighbour.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a service request was logged on 12 May 2020 for a damp and mould assessment to be completed in the resident’s living room and kitchen.
The resident submitted an online repair form on 29 June 2020 that advised that major repairs were needed to the building to make it watertight and reduce damp in her living room. She provided internal and external photographs with this report and submitted further images on 2 July 2020 that showed black mould to her living room wall, peeling paintwork to the external front bay window, render falling away from the building and damp markings to the external front boundary wall. There was also a photograph that showed her possessions had been affected by mould growth.
The landlord’s records show that it was seeking to establish on 4 August 2020 whether its surveyor had yet attended the property.
The resident forwarded photographs to the landlord again on 24 August 2020 and it raised a repair order on 26 August 2020, noting that the resident had reported her living room walls were black with mould.
The landlord’s records show that the resident chased it on 10 September 2020 for the outcome of an inspection that she said it had conducted on 1 September 2020.
The landlord’s surveyor made a request on 14 September 2020 for its contractor to raise repair orders to clear a blockage and remove debris from a downpipe, repair render with a waterproofing agent, re-point brickwork, repair mortar to window sills and frames and apply a coat of sterilising solution and two coats of paint to the living room walls and ceiling.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 November 2020, apologising and offering £50 compensation for a delay in it acknowledging a complaint it had received from her. It said that it expected to offer a full response by 4 December 2020.
The landlord’s contractor reverted to the landlord on 11 November 2020, advising that it needed specifications and to “know the nature of damp works” and that the resident would be responsible for flaking external paint and mould. The landlord re-submitted its September 2020 repair order request to the contractor on 15 November 2020.
The landlord’s surveyor made requests on 3 December 2020 and 6 January 2021 for its contractor to update it following a visit by an operative on 24 November 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails of 6 January 2021 show that it was aware that the resident had Covid-19 on this date and that it was considering escalating the resident’s complaint due to a lack of progress since the complaint was submitted.
The landlord’s complaints team chased the contractor on 7 and 12 January 2021 for an update on the repairs.
The landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement letter to the resident on 18 January 2021, advising her initial complaint had been escalated and its final complaint response would be provided by 10 February 2021. Its records show that it left a voicemail message for the resident accordingly on the same date. It also spoke to her on 27 January 2021 when she advised that scaffolding had been erected the day before.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 February 2021, apologising for keeping her waiting but advising it had tried to deliver a dehumidifier the day before, pointing and rendering works were scheduled for 8 February 2021, guttering and downpipe works would be done on 22 February 2021 and the final complaint response would be provided within a week.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 8 February 2021 that demonstrate the dehumidifier was successfully delivered on that date.
The landlord issued a final complaint response on 9 February 2021. It said it had escalated the case due to a lack of progress and concluded that:
1. it could see that the resident had reported damp and mould dating back to 2017 and that she had raised the matter again from May 2020 but it had failed to communicate with her;
2. a surveyor inspected in September 2020 and recommended external and internal works but these had not been scheduled with the resident and the contractor had still failed to make progress even after her complaint was made;
3. it agreed that the repairs could have been progressed more quickly and apologised for a delay in acknowledging the original complaint;
4. it awarded compensation of £350 in recognition of delays, distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident and her daughter in regard to the repairs and complaint;
5. scaffolding had been erected but there had been a delay with pointing and rendering works due to cold weather but it expected to start them on 12 February 2021 (and its contractor would update the resident if this needed to be rescheduled again);
6. the guttering had been repaired as an interim measure but it and the downpipe would be renewed on 22 February 2021;
7. it was waiting for an area to dry before redecorating which it said would take around two weeks and its contractor would be in touch;
8. a dehumidifier had been provided to aid the drying out and it recommended that this be switched on for the following two weeks and it would reimburse any increased electricity charges used by the machine;
9. a surveyor would oversee the remaining works and post-inspect once they were completed;
10. it said that it was working with its “surveying team and contractors to improve how we manage larger repairs to ensure our customers are updated regularly in a proactive manner”.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The landlord told the resident on 10 February 2021 that it understood the external decorations were not part of the complaint and it would arrange for her to be given details about its cyclical decorations programme. Its internal emails that day confirmed that the property was in its five-year plan (2021/22 to 2025/26) of stock investment but there was no budget confirmation at that stage so no specific timescale for works to her property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 February 2021, setting out continued concerns in reply to the final complaint response, including the lack of a scope of works and what she described as a “derisory” compensation offer. She added that the dehumidifier had blown her electrics fuse on a few occasions and she requested a clear scope of works that included reference to the peeling external paint and remedial works to the rear of the property.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same date, advising that a compensation review would be undertaken and the works had been listed in its final complaint response. It queried the resident’s report about the dehumidifier blowing her electrics, asked if works to the rear of the property were connected to the damp issue and advised that the surveyor would take appropriate actions on the external decorations given the cyclical programme was not due for a long time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2021, advising that:
1. the electrics outage was reported to it but it had referred her to its contractor who referred her to a third party and she had been left without electrics (sometimes for 24 hours at a time);
2. the landlord should take advantage of the scaffolding being up to complete external decorations and more details were needed on what decorations were to be done;
3. no progress had been made with the rendering, pointing, guttering and downpipe repairs;
4. repairs were needed to the front and back of the property due to damp.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 March 2021, apologising for the situation with the electrics and advising that its surveyor would be the point of contact in future and that it would not be increasing the compensation award.
The resident submitted further emails in early-mid March 2021, chasing a response as to when external decorations and downpipe works were to be done as the dehumidifier was being used but the property could not dry out. The landlord’s complaints team wrote to the resident at this time, advising that they could not assist further and that its surveyors would need to contact her.
The landlord’s internal emails from early-mid March 2021 indicate that the contractor was of the view that external works were complete.
The landlord’s records show that a repair order was raised and closed on 7 April 2021 for an electrical test due to a reported fault.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 April 2021, advising she had received no updates since February 2021 and the scaffolding was still in place with guttering untouched and external render still falling away. She added that the dehumidifier had been in place for two months but this had been pointless.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 April 2021, following up a visit it conducted that day. It advised that:
1. external decorations would be undertaken through its cyclical decorations programme but this was unlikely to be done that year;
2. it believed that there was damp due to condensation caused by the property not being sufficiently ventilated so advice on methods to decrease humidity was given;
3. there was a left-hand wall between the property and the communal hallway which was cold so it proposed to remove ‘sempatap’ and thermal board this area instead;
4. it would explore the possibility of relocating a radiator under the bay window to combat reported mould growth;
5. it had located leaks from above (from the toilet and kitchen sink of the upstairs flat) so it would remedy these and redecorate the affected kitchen window reveal area;
6. other works had been raised to re-glaze a cracked living room window, re-hang the front gate, unblock a front gully and renew plastic waste pipe clips.
The resident replied to the landlord on 14 April 2021, asking for it to consider adding mould resistant living room painting and communal hallway works to the schedule.
The resident chased a response to the above correspondence on 20 and 28 April 2021. The landlord asked her the same day if its contractors had been in touch and advised that it was seeking a date for the scaffolding to be removed.
The landlord’s records show that a repair order was raised on 6 May 2021 for “various internal remedial repairs” to be conducted.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 May 2021, advising that there had still been little progress with a delay even in removing scaffolding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021, expressing concern that there had been no movement and advising that contractors had been chased.
The resident advised the landlord on 13 May 2021 that scaffolding had been removed the day before but black discolouration to the living room wall was returning and remedial works were needed.
The resident approached this Service in May 2021, advising that no works had been attempted to protect the building from the elements. She subsequently reported that works planned for 18 May 2021 and 4 June 2021 had not been attended to as promised.
The resident chased the landlord on 24 May 2021, 9 June 2021, 13 June 2021 and 28 June 2021 for responses to her report earlier in May 2021 and to advise that planned works starts had been missed by contractors on several occasions in recent weeks. She added that a painter had turned up but the mould was still growing, there was still a leak from the neighbour’s toilet (into her boiler system) and her mental health was being impacted.
The landlord’s internal emails from late June 2021 show that the contractor acknowledged there had been missed appointments but it had kept the resident updated and two visits would be needed for the living room works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2021, advising it had still not responded to her emails but letting it know that window operatives had said they would return in two weeks, the plasterer had attended but not completed works to allow painting to progress and nobody had attended to the leak from above.
The resident advised this Service in August 2021 that:
1. proposed works had not started in June 2021 as promised and the guttering pipework had not been replaced;
2. the external wall render works had not been completed and the landlord had removed the scaffolding, advising her that this was because works would not be completed in the foreseeable future;
3. the affected section of the living room wall had not been dealt with and the woodwork and ceiling had not been painted;
4. damage to the kitchen wall and ceiling, following a leak from above, had not been remedied;
5. guttering to the rear of the property was faulty (and rainwater was running out of it) and brickwork to the rear also needed re-plastering and painting;
6. radiator relocation works were outstanding and further issues such as removal of rubbish and clearance of a bathroom sink waste water pipe needed to be attended to by the landlord.
The landlord asked the resident on 8 October 2021 for an appropriate time to collect the dehumidifier from the property. The resident replied on 13 October 2021, querying why repairs were still incomplete and why emails had not been responded to.
The resident told this Service in December 2021 that she had not heard from the landlord since July 2021. She added as recently as August 2022 that the landlord had completed some plastering and decorating works to the living room, which meant there was no longer a mould presence, but she was not aware that it had conducted any of the works that it had diagnosed as being necessary to prevent damp in the property.

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 landlord has acknowledged in its communications with the resident that it is in agreement that she raised concerns about damp and mould to the property in 2017. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service what response the landlord undertook but it was inappropriate that the resident had to re-submit similar reports from May 2020 that the building was not watertight and that this was impacting her living conditions.
The landlord noted in May 2020 that an inspection was required to assess damp to the living room and kitchen. Its repairs policy obliges it to attend to such reports within 20 working days but it did not visit the property until 1 September 2020, almost four months later. This Service accepts that early 2020 was a difficult period for landlords, many of whom were only attending to emergency works due to the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to communicate pro-actively with the resident during this period, particularly given she had provided it with photographs of the mould growth to her walls and possessions.
The landlord’s inspection of 1 September 2020 led to it requesting later that month that its contractor progress works to the external render, downpipe and living room decorations. However, there was again an unnecessary delay of a further two months until mid-November 2020 when the landlord had to pass the same repair order request to the contractor. This was inappropriate and demonstrates that the landlord failed to monitor the works it had passed to its contractor.
Despite being aware of the delays to this point, no works progressed until late January 2021 when the resident confirmed scaffolding had been erected. The landlord took steps to chase its contractor in December 2020 and January 2021 but this did not prompt any answer from the contractor and it was again unreasonable that the resident was not kept updated. This will inevitably have left her uncertain as to what actions, if any, the landlord was willing to take to remedy the mould growth in her property.
There was some progress with damp-related works in late January-early February 2021, around the time the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, as a dehumidifier was delivered and undertakings were made for operatives to attend to rendering and guttering repairs and downpipe renewal works. However, by the time the scaffolding was removed in mid-May 2021, the resident reported that the rendering and downpipe works were still outstanding and internal mould growth was expanding. This demonstrates that there was a further unnecessary delay and it is inappropriate that the landlord failed to ensure its contractor completed works that it had proposed to be conducted three months earlier.
The resident reported that external paintwork, around the bay window in particular, was peeling away at least as early as May 2020. When the landlord considered the resident’s escalated complaint in February 2021, it decided that the external decorations were not part of the complaint. It is unclear how it determined this albeit it was reasonable for it to check whether the resident’s property would be attended to in the short-term as part of its cyclical programme of works. It became aware immediately after its final complaint response that there was no specific timescale for when its major works scheme would address the external decorations to the property and it passed this information to the resident in April 2021. Although it kept the resident informed on the cyclical decorations enquiries in February-April 2021, it was unreasonable that the landlord delayed in responding to the issue between May 2020 and February 2021 and failed to assess whether it should bring forward these works given the internal damp problems at the property.
The landlord conducted a further surveyor’s inspection in April 2021, identifying additional damp-related works as necessary such as thermal boarding to an external wall, potential relocation of a radiator and remedying leaks from above into the resident’s kitchen. Although the landlord raised a repair order in May 2021 for completion of various internal remedial repairs, it is inappropriate that there is no record of any of the works diagnosed in April 2021 (or September 2020) being completed and post-inspected by the time the resident was in discussion with this Service in August 2021. This was a particularly significant failing by the landlord given it was well aware by this point of the health concerns the resident had raised and that she submitted multiple chasers during this period.
When the landlord reviewed the complaint in February 2021, it apologised to the resident, awarded £350 compensation (partly for the repairs and partly for complaint handling), promised to progress works and said its surveying team had learned lessons from the case and would be her point of contact. Given it had acknowledged the long-standing nature of the damp reports, the resident was vulnerable due to her health conditions and both the living room and kitchen had been impacted by the problem, this level of compensation was insufficient. Further, despite the assurances it offered about future pro-active communications by better working between its surveying team and contractors, similar failings continued well into 2021 as it:
1. did not address the resident’s concerns about the dehumidifier interrupting her electric supply and causing outages between March-April 2021;
2. failed to respond to questions the resident raised about the extent of works planned following the additional survey in April 2021;
3. did not answer the resident’s concerns during May-July 2021 about the continued lack of progress.

The landlord therefore did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles as it failed to put things right or learn lessons from the case.

In summary, the landlord acted outside its repairing obligations by failing to complete works to address what it acknowledged to be a long-standing damp problem in the resident’s property. It did not offer sufficient updates to the resident between May 2020 and August 2021 and contributed to unreasonable delays in both diagnosing and carrying out works to address the causes, and impact, of damp. This was despite it being aware of her health conditions that made her potentially vulnerable to damp and mould growth.

Complaint handling

A copy of the resident’s original complaint has not been provided to this Service but a complaint was logged for her on 10 November 2020 when the landlord apologised and awarded £50 compensation for a delay in acknowledging it. The landlord was obliged to issue a complaint response within 10 working days, according to its complaints policy, but there was an inappropriate delay of almost two months before it decided in mid-January 2021 to escalate the complaint to its final stage without issuing a stage one response.
Once it escalated the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2021, the landlord was obliged to provide its final complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord offered this response on 9 February 2021, which was therefore within an appropriate timescale, and it took reasonable steps to explain how it intended to put right the repairs delays to date and offered compensation of £350 (which was partially to recognise its complaint handling failures).
However, the landlord told the resident in its final complaint response that its surveyor would oversee the remaining works and post-inspect them; it subsequently told her that the surveyor would be her point of contact. Despite these assurances, the resident continued to have to chase the landlord during February-April 2021 for progress and answers on her concerns about the extent of works. Although the landlord’s complaints policy shows that it can make commitments at the end of a complaints process and that these will be managed separately to that procedure, it is unreasonable that there was not a sufficient handover so that the resident had a reliable point of contact from February 2021.
Indeed, the complaints team took a ‘hands off’ approach from March 2021 by effectively telling the resident that it was no longer involved in the case despite being aware of the continued difficulty she was having in obtaining answers from the surveyor. This will inevitably have caused the resident additional time and trouble and left her uncertain as to which member of staff was overseeing her case.
In summary, there was an initial inappropriate delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint. Although it offered an apology and compensation for this, it subsequently failed to take ownership and manage the resident’s contact pro-actively after the end of the complaints process despite the commitments it had offered her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of damp in her living room and kitchen;
2. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in diagnosing the cause of damp to the resident’s property and failed to ensure that repairs were conducted within an appropriate timescale. The remedy it offered through the complaints process was insufficient given the circumstances of the case and its failings have continued since its final complaint response.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s initial complaint appropriately and, although it apologised and awarded compensation for this, it did not deliver on its promise to maintain communications with her after the end of the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. explain how she can obtain a reimbursement for the additional electricity costs she incurred by using the dehumidifier between February-October 2021;
3. update her on when it now expects to attend to her external decorations as part of its cyclical programme and, if it is still unable to provide a date, explain whether it is willing to conduct any external decoration works in the meantime.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,250, made up of:
1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failings in its handling of her reports of damp in her living room and kitchen;
2. £250 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to her by the service failings in its handling of the related complaint.

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

The landlord to conduct a full inspection of the resident’s property and subsequently write to her to:
1. confirm whether there is still a damp problem at the property and, if so, provide a diagnosis of the cause(s) of this;
2. advise if it is satisfied that it has completed the external repairs and remedial works it identified in its September 2020 and April 2021 visits, including the kitchen decorations;
3. provide a specification of any outstanding external repairs and remedial works with timescales for completion;
4. advise how it will post-inspect these works to ensure they have been successful in remedying the damp problem;
5. offer her a point of contact who will be able to respond promptly to any enquiries she has during the works.
The landlord to review its handling of this case and create an action plan to show how it will address relevant learning points, including:
1. how it will ensure oversight of repairs that its contractor should be progressing and escalate individual cases with them where it is aware that there are performance failings;
2. how it will ensure there is a reliable handover process so that its complaints team can pass on responsibility for completion of outstanding commitments, and the related communications with residents, at the end of the complaints process.

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