Hyde Housing Association Limited (202318962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318962

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 August 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen and the associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she resides in a one bed ground floor flat. The resident has known disabilities. She suffers from lung disease and inflammatory arthritis which can sometimes affect her joints and lungs and also impacts her mobility.
In September 2022 the resident began reporting concerns of a distinctive odour in her kitchen, she believed this to be a sign of damp and mould issues behind her kitchen units.
The landlord carried out a visual inspection in November 2022 and identified some black mould near the back door. The resident reported that the landlord did not inspect behind the washing machine or the kitchen units.
In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and raised a complaint regarding several outstanding issues, including the damp and mould in the kitchen. She said that no further action had been taken since the visit in November 2022.
The landlord attended at the end of March 2022 and carried out a mould wash. Upon inspecting behind the washing machine and kitchen units further damp and mould was identified. The resident reports that she was told someone would be in touch to progress the matter.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 April 2023. It said:
1. ‘It is clear that we should have completed your repairs much sooner.’
2. That it responded promptly to the initial report but then failed to raise any follow up works to resolve the problem.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had chased the repairs on several occasions.
4. A stain block would be carried out on 17 April 2023.
5. In recognition of the failures identified it offered the resident £250 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the complaint handling failures
  2. £100 for time and trouble
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Between April – June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again on several occasions, reporting that the damp odour had returned. Given her health issues she was particularly concerned that there may be more damp and mould behind the units that were less accessible.
There is a significant gap in evidence between June 2023 and January 2024 when the resident began to chase the repairs again and escalated her complaint.
On 4 January 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey of the property. The survey said that there was:
1. Condensation due to previous water ingress.
2. Possible dampness behind the kitchen base units.
3. Paint peeling off the kitchen wall.
4. Mould at the bottom of the wall below the kitchen back door.

Repairs were raised to:

Remove and refix the kitchen units to allow for mould treatment.
Prepare and wash down affected walls and ceilings.
Overhaul kitchen fan.

On 12 January 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It did not follow its internal complaints policy and should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 in July 2023.
2. It was confident that its original complaint response was appropriate at the time, however, it recognised that it failed to do what it said it would.
3. It increased the compensation offer to £900, comprising:
  1. £350 for complaint handling failures
  2. £200 for delays in service delivery
  3. £150 for time and trouble
  4. £200 for distress and inconvenience
Following the stage 2 response the resident did not accept the compensation offered and escalated her complaint to this Service. In resolution she wanted the substantive issue to be resolved first.

Scope of investigation

Since escalating her complaint to this Service, the resident has informed us that the landlord has since attended and carried out the required works in March 2024. However, she reports that she is unhappy with the standard of work and the damage that has been caused to her kitchen units and flooring, stating that the ‘kitchen is in a considerably worse state than it was before’.
In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns and as such, the resident will need to contact the landlord to report these new issues and raise another complaint if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen and the associated repairs.

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
In this case, when the resident initially reported her concerns in September 2022 the evidence shows that the necessary inspection was promptly raised but subsequently cancelled. No explanation has been offered by the landlord as to why this was cancelled but it was later re-arranged for November 2022 following further contact from the resident. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure does not specify timeframes, however, given that the resident had known vulnerabilities, including a respiratory condition it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to attend more promptly.
In addition to this unreasonable delay, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a sufficient inspection at this stage, in line with its damp and mould procedure. Nor did it arrange the required follow up repairs. Although it is noted that the surveyor was unable to gain access behind the kitchen units, it would have been appropriate to carry out further investigations, in order to satisfy itself that there was no underlying issue and provide re-assurance to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies
Due to insufficient evidence in this case, it is unclear if the resident chased the landlord between November 2022 – March 2023. However, the landlord’s repair records do not show any repairs during this period. It would be reasonable to expect a landlord to monitor and follow up on any potential damp and mould concerns as set out in the HHSRS guidance, which it failed to do in this case.
It is not disputed that the landlord acknowledged its failures within its stage 1 response. However, it did not appropriately acknowledge the impact these failures had upon a vulnerable resident, nor did it do enough to resolve the substantive issue. Following the resident’s initial complaint the landlord carried out a mould wash and a stain block to the accessible areas, but it did not carry out a comprehensive investigation until January 2024, 9 months later. Therefore, it failed to appropriately meet its repairing obligations.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that possible damp problems behind the kitchen base units were identified during the inspection on 4 January 2022. It said that it had raised a job for the units to be removed, allowing for a mould treatment and for the walls and ceilings to be washed down. In addition to this it increased its compensation offer to £900, comprising the £350 for a complaint handling failure, £200 for the service delays, £150 for time and trouble and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows that following this response the landlord then failed to attend the appointment scheduled for 15 January 2024 . This caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident as she had already packed up her belongings to allow access. The resident states that due to her disabilities she was unable to unpack the items until the work was completed in March 2024, approximately 4 weeks later.
The resident also raised her concerns about the suitability of the fan in the kitchen. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s surveyor concluded that the fan did meet the required specifications and accordingly the decision to not install a new fan was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord failed to meet its repair obligations and carry out a prompt, effective investigation into the resident’s reports of damp and mould within her home. The resident spent a considerable amount of time and trouble chasing the landlord and was distressed about the impact the damp and mould could have upon her health. Furthermore, it is of particular concern that the landlord did not act with the appropriate urgency given the residents vulnerabilities. It is recognised that following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning and the level of compensation it offered to the resident was disproportionately low when the length of these repair delays (September 2022 – January 2024) is considered.
Financial redress has been ordered which recognises the impact upon the resident for a substantial period due to the delayed repairs. In addition to a payment for the time and trouble expended by the resident and the inconvenience caused to her. The period considered for this calculation is September 2022 – February 2024, 16 months in total.
This has been calculated as follows:
1. £50 per month from the date the resident raised her initial concerns to the completion of the remedial works. 16 months x £50 = £800.
2. An additional award for time, trouble and inconvenience has also been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord states that where possible it will provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days. Following a request to escalate a complaint, the landlord states it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
In this case the evidence shows that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response issued in April 2023. She reported her dissatisfaction to the landlord several times between May – July 2023. However, the landlord failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its internal policy and procedure.
Following further contact from the resident the landlord did finally escalate the complaint in January 2024.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged this complaint handling failure within its stage 2 response in January 2024. It offered the resident £350 compensation, which was in line with its policy and therefore reasonable redress for this failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report, this must include any appropriate learning and how it intends to avoid similar delays in the future.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1500, broken down as follows:
  1. £800 for the delays in carrying out the appropriate repairs (September 2022 – February 2024, 16 months x £50).
  2. £350 already offered for the complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
  3. £150 already offered for the time and trouble expended by the resident, if not already paid.
  4. £200 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, if not already paid.
3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings occurred
2. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. Respond to repair requests appropriately
  2. Are aware of the internal damp and mould procedure
  3. Raise follow on repairs in a timely manner
  4. Take into consideration individual vulnerabilities and allocate the appropriate urgency
3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.