Hyde Housing Association Limited (202214409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214409

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 March 2024

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. response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. complaint handling.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupied a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat with her 2 young children. The resident’s relative acted as her representative during the complaint – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 3 November 2020 following an inspection of the garden and damp-proof course the landlord’s contractor recommended that it excavate around the front and side elevations of the property to prevent flooding. This work was carried out in January 2021. Subsequently, the landlord found that the pea shingle the contractor had installed was breaching the damp proof course. On 3 February 2021 the landlord raised a repair order to ‘insulate cupboard’ strip existing walls, clean down the mould from any affected areas, and line the wall with plasterboard. This work was completed on 13 April 2021. The landlord raised another repair order to apply damp and mould paint and to fill the ceiling and wall. This work was completed on 4 May 2021.
On 12 July 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and identified that there was a problem with ‘low level’ reoccurring damp and mould that was affecting the resident’s furniture. It subsequently asked for jobs to be raised to check the kitchen extractor fan, and stain block affected areas and to raise an inspection to assess the property with an infrared camera. The landlord inspected the property on 27 July 2021. It repaired the extractor fan and found that the damp issues ‘seemed’ to be rising from the concrete floor. It stain blocked the affected areas on 5 August 2021.
On 17 September 2021 the resident asked to be rehoused. She said that she had been living with 2 young children in damp conditions for a long time and the landlord had not fixed the issues. The same month she raised a formal complaint. The resident chased for a response in October 2021 and November 2021. In summary, she said that her flat had not been fit for human habitation due to damp and mould since she moved in. She added that her family had suffered health issues because of this and had experienced financial loss through damage to her belongings and high electricity bills through needing to run a dehumidifier. Further, she stated that the landlord was slow to reply and had cancelled scheduled appointments and felt that it refused to support her with a move. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to transfer her to a suitable property and compensation for financial loss.
At the beginning of January 2022, the resident was decanted from her property for approximately 1 week while the landlord removed the floor tiles and carried out screeding work to the property. On 14 February 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It partially upheld the complaint. In summary, it said:
1. It should have done the repairs quicker however some delays were caused by the resident.
2. It committed to arranging a damp survey, completing the recommended works, and carrying out a post inspection.
3. An appointment was arranged for 1 March 2022 for the skirting boards to be repaired and the doors to be inspected and cleaned.
4. It did not deal with moving and transfers and she would need to contact the local authority in this respect.
5. It apologised and offered £200 compensation in recognition of the delay, time and trouble and inconvenience caused.
On 16 February 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she was declining its offer of compensation. On 30 March 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She disputed that she had caused delays to the works and added that the landlord was not responding to her emails. She asked for a total amount of compensation of £4,577.50 for damage to her belongings, increased electrical costs, and the distress and inconvenience caused. On 9 May 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
1. It initiated its formal complaint process on 15 November 2021 but acknowledged the resident had ‘reported’ the issue previously.
2. All the required repairs were now completed but it acknowledged it could have reached this point much sooner.
3. It had attempted to engage with the resident regarding her decant disturbance payment, however despite its efforts the resident did not seek to claim this.
4. It did not operate its own transfer list and therefore was unable to consider a direct move for the resident and it was aware she had accepted a tenancy for another property.
5. Its compensation policy did not account for damages to personal items and its insurance team would not accept the resident’s claim.
6. It would increase its offer of compensation to £475, comprised of £50 for time and trouble, £25 for poor communication, £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, £50 for her patience throughout the complaints process, £150 for the delay in completing repairs, and £150 for distress and inconvenience caused.
On 30 June 2022 the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £625. It then increased this offer to £775 on 1 July 2022. This included additional compensation for its complaint handling failures, delays to repairs, time and trouble, and the use of additional electricity. It added that having reviewed the complaint it could see that its actions were too reactive rather than proactive.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that the landlord must have been aware of the damp issues from the start of her tenancy and its responses were slow and ineffective. She added that she had suffered significant financial loss. Further, she stated that her family suffered significant health issues as a result of the damp and mould and the landlord had not supported her with a move. She was also unhappy with the handling of the complaint, the level of compensation offered, and its failure to address and pay her a disturbance allowance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service has been provided with correspondence relating to historical reports of damp and mould dating from 2019. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 6 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case and taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has not considered any specific events prior to November 2020. The assessment will therefore focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from November 2020 up to the landlord’s final response in June 2022.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she advised that the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould had led to a deterioration in the health of the household. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, 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 liability insurance. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
In addition, the resident advised that she is seeking compensation for damages. This Service cannot determine that the landlord is liable for damages, as determining liability requires a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. Instead, this Service will consider any request for compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that all non-urgent repairs will be attended to and completed within 20 working days.
Section 37 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 entitles a person to a disturbance payment where they are displaced temporally or permanently when the landlord is carrying out any improvement to a property. The landlord’s decant and home loss policy states that where a resident is decanted and decides to stay with friends/family they are entitled to a disturbance payment of £40 per day per household.
The landlord’s procedure states that pre-inspections should be carried out in the investigation of potential damp and mould cases and that the target time is within 10 working days of the inspection order date. It adds that a surveyor should complete a pro forma for each inspection, including photos and recommendations. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect that on receiving reports of mould, the landlord should respond, arrange an inspection and investigate to determine the causes of damp and mould and, if necessary, carry out remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale.
Evidence provided by the resident to this Service indicated that the inspection of the garden and damp-proof course was carried out on 29 October 2020. It took the landlord’s contractor almost 3 months to complete the recommended works. This was an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the landlord identified at the end of February 2021 that the work had not been carried out properly and that the pea shingle was breaching the damp proof course. However, it is unclear if this was ever resolved. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s contractor failed to carry out the works effectively which likely contributed to delays in resolving the damp and mould. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 3February 2021 the landlord raised repair orders to insulate the store cupboard and clean down the affected areas of mould. The landlord’s records indicated that these works were scheduled to be completed on 16 March 2021. While the landlord’s records indicated that this appointment was cancelled by the resident it failed to arrange another appointment within its repairs timescales. The work was finally completed on 13 April 2021 over 2 months after the order was raised. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
Following this work the landlord raised another repair order to apply damp and mould paint and to fill the ceiling and wall. The landlord’s records indicated that this work was completed on 4 May 2021. While the landlord acted broadly in line with its repairs timescales in this respect, it is unclear why this work was not identified and remedied sooner.
Indeed, the landlord’s records showed that it was not until 1 July 2021 that it raised a property inspection for 27 July 2021. While the landlord carried out the inspection with its pre-inspection timescales this Service has not seen a copy of its pro forma report or photographs as outlined in its policy. While this likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, no orders have been made in this respect as the Ombudsman has made record-keeping orders in similar landlord cases.
Although the landlord carried out the recommended works from its July 2021 inspection promptly it should have completed a full survey of the property much earlier. Furthermore, it failed to carry out an infrared assessment of the property at its inspection on 27 July 2021 despite its commitment to do so. In addition, it failed to update the resident that it would be unable to attend a rescheduled assessment in September 2021. These were further failures on the part of the landlord that would have likely caused further distress to the resident.
Following its 27 July 2021 inspection, the landlord asked its contractor for a quote to remove the floor tiles to the 2 bedrooms, lounge, and hallway and carry out screeding works. The landlord’s records showed that it subsequently agreed to decant the resident in the middle of October 2021. However, at the beginning of October 2021, the resident asked the landlord to postpone the work for a month or so. The contractor advised that its next availability was not until January 2022. The evidence showed that the landlord acted reasonably in this respect, by keeping the resident updated and agreeing a mutually convenient time to complete the work. Furthermore, it acted fairly by contacting the contractor to see if the date could be changed.
The landlord’s records indicated that the resident was decanted from the property for approximately a week while the work took place, while she stayed with her family. The landlord’s final response indicated that the resident was entitled to claim a disturbance payment for this period. It stated that it had attempted to engage with her regarding this, but she did not seek to claim the payment. This Service has seen no evidence to reconcile this statement nor is there any evidence of communication with the resident in respect of this matter. The resident informed this Service that the landlord did not pay a disturbance payment and failed to address this issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made an order for compensation that is broadly in line with the disturbance payment amount the resident would have expected to receive.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it would commit to arranging a damp survey, yet this Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord doing this nor any works being completed after February 2022. This again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Nonetheless, the landlord’s final response of 14 June 2023 stated that all the required repairs to the property had been completed which the resident did not dispute.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to investigate the issue satisfactorily. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant given the fact she occupied the property with her 2 young children.
This resident’s continued reports of damp and mould should have prompted the landlord to carry out a full survey of the property much sooner. Instead, its approach was reactive and piecemeal which led to delays in repairs and a number of unsuccessful visits to the property. Had it taken a holistic approach to the situation it would likely have identified the root cause of the issue sooner.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould was poor. There was a series of failures that had a detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for many of these failures in its revised stage 2 responses. In its July 2022 review, it offered£675 compensation for what appeared to be for its handling of reports of damp and mould. While this amount is broadly in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have caused a significant adverse effect, this Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified the entirety of its failings earlier. As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was maladministration, and an additional award of compensation has been made below.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord’s priority move procedure states that priority moves will only be considered in exceptional circumstances where all other options to keep a resident in their current home have been considered and discounted as inappropriate. It lists cases where this may be appropriate such as threat to life/severe harassment and/or threats of violence and actual violence/domestic abuse where the issue can only be resolved by an emergency move.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2021 to discuss her ‘case to rehouse’ due to the damp and mould. It subsequently advised her to contact the local authority to go on their bidding list or apply for a mutual exchange. It is unclear what the nature of the request to move was, however, it appears from other correspondence that the resident was seeking a permanent transfer. As such, the advice provided by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstance and it was appropriate for it to provide her with alternative housing options.
The landlord’s records indicated that she made further queries about her housing options and ‘moving on the bidding list’ in October 2021, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This led to her chasing for a response in November 2021. The landlord records suggested that it was not until its stage 1 response in February 2022, over 4 months later that it responded to this matter. Furthermore, its response could have been clearer and more understanding. While it was appropriate for the landlord to direct her to the local authority it should have provided a clear explanation as to why it was unable to assist with a housing transfer in this case. Its failure to so do would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was being unsupportive.
The landlord’s final response was much clearer and provided a reasonable level of detail regarding this matter. Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to decline a priority move or housing transfer, in line with its policy. Nevertheless, there were unnecessary delays in responding to her requests and its stage 1 response was unclear and dismissive.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident was accepted onto the council’s housing register in November 2021 and subsequently moved into another property in May 2022. This is a mitigating factor when it comes to the overall impact on the resident. However, the Ombudsman considers that there were failures in the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s request to be rehoused that have not been ‘put right’. This amounts to service failure and an order for compensation has been made below in line with this Services remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints process states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It adds that if the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 response, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed at stage 2 of the complaint process.
The resident stated that she initially raised a complaint in September 2021, however, the landlord failed to respond to her. This led to her chasing it for a response in October 2021 and again in November 2021. The landlord finally issued its stage 1 response on 14 February 2022, 5 months later. This was a considerable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that her concerns were being ignored. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to apologise for these delays or identify any learning from this.
The resident responded 3 days later informing the landlord that she would not be accepting its offer of compensation. The landlord acknowledged this but did not progress the complaint to stage 2. This was a missed opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint. Following this expression of dissatisfaction the landlord should have confirmed whether the resident wished to progress her complaint to its next stage. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that delayed getting matters resolved for the resident.
In any case, the resident specifically asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 March 2022, however, the landlord did not respond to this. This led to her chasing the landlord again in May 2022. The landlord provided its final stage 2 response on 14 June 2022. This was another considerable delay, which would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who was left having to continually chase the landlord to progress her complaint.
It took the resident over 9 months to complete the landlord’s complaints process. This was unsatisfactory and the landlord failed to keep to its policy timescales. It is noted that the landlord’s formal responses and subsequent complaint reviews offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, it is considered that this does not go far enough in ‘putting things right’. Therefore, this Service has made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and a further order for compensation has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,355 comprised of:
  1. £775 as offered by the landlord in its July 2022 review of the complaint.
  2. A further £150 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. £280 compensation for a disturbance payment having been decanted from the property for approximately a week in line with its policy.
  4. £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  5. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.