Incommunities Limited (202228889)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228889

Incommunities Limited

30 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Record keeping.
    2. Handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 4-bedroom house. She lives in the property with her 3 children. The resident has asthma and has stated that all 3 of her children have additional needs. Some of the additional needs include one child being asthmatic, another has autism, and another child has a brain injury.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 21 February 2022. She raised several outstanding repairs, including issues with damp. The resident advised that she needed advance warning of any appointments so she could prepare her children. A stage 1 response was issued on 2 March 2022, however the landlord did not address the damp in its response.
  3. On 20 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord as she stated that several repairs had been outstanding for over a year. On 30 December 2022 the landlord noted in an internal email that the resident had contacted again regarding outstanding repairs. The resident had stated that there was still damp in the property which the landlord had not treated or resolved. The resident said she was having asthma attacks, and her bed covers were damp. The landlord noted that it had a duty of care. It also logged that the resident said she had medical letters advising that the damp was impacting on her own and her children’s health.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 30 January 2023. This response stated that high moisture contents in the property were due to the property not being correctly heated. The landlord noted that there was a small leak on the boiler which needed repairing, and that it would follow this up with the resident. It also noted several other repairs. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in regard to the repairs which caused stress and inconvenience, it offered £100 for that. It offered a further £100 for its complaint handling.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 February 2023. On 11 April 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the resident asking if she wished to proceed her complaint with the Ombudsman. The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 18 January 2024. The resident confirmed that her complaint is regarding the ongoing damp which has led to mould. When providing evidence, the landlord confirmed that a further stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response had been issued on 2 January 2024 and 8 May 2024.
  6. The landlord’s most recent stage 2 response dated 8 May 2024 stated that following a damp survey completed in January 2024, the resident had refused the works and therefore it cancelled the jobs. It said a further survey took place on 9 April 2024 and the findings were that there were no property defects causing her property to have high levels of humidity. It outlined the remedial works as making good the fixings to the plasterboard, making good the ceiling where the previous positive input ventilation (PIV) was fitted, a mould wash, and redecorate the front and back bedrooms. It said it had scheduled the works for 13 May 2024. It did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said some repairs had been completed, but not all, and there was still visible damp and mould in the property. The resident said she was feeling defeated, and the issues had impacted her mental health and other illness.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her family’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
  2. In line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will investigate 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in February 2022 up until the landlord’s first stage 2 response. The resident made a further complaint regarding the damp in the property in January 2024 and the landlord provided further stage 1 and 2 responses in relation to the issues. The Ombudsman has therefore also considered the timeframe up until the second stage 2 response dated 8 May 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs

  1. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. In this case, the landlord has provided its repair records. However, it was difficult to decipher when and why some repairs were raised by the landlord and which records were related to the reported damp and mould. This made it challenging to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed later in this report.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 12 March 2021 and raised repairs to renew the loft insulation and for the external front door, which had “split and bubbled”. It is unclear when the repairs identified were completed and whether they were completed satisfactorily. An example of this is in January and February 2023, repairs were raised for the front door as it had not been aligned properly and was letting in cold air. It would be reasonable to assume that this may have impacted the issue of damp and mould in the property.
  4. On 4 April 2021 and 19 October 2021, the resident reported that the repairs were outstanding, and she had damp in her property which was impacting the household’s health. Around the same time the landlord raised repairs for a chimney leak and noted that the gable wall in the main bedroom was wet in the corner. While the landlord completed some work in that time, it is unclear whether the works fully assisted with the reported damp and mould in the property.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint on 21 February 2022, the landlord’s records do not show any action taken in relation to the damp and mould until an internal email on 14 May 2022. The email requested that someone contact the resident in relation to the damp in the property. The delay in taking any action regarding the resident’s complaint was not appropriate, nor was it in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s policy at the time stated that if there was more than 1 report of damp and mould in a property within 12 months, a field manager would visit the property. Surveys and inspections are essential to inform oversight and a schedule of works to tackle damp and mould. There is no evidence of such a visit at the time.
  6. The landlord’s records show that repairs were carried out in the resident’s property in June, July, and August 2022. Again, it is unclear whether these repairs would have assisted with the reported damp and mould in the property. However, it was noted on 24 August 2022 that the PIVsystem needed servicing. On 7 September 2022 a repair was raised to replaster the chimney breast. The records said that the wallpaper in 3 of the bedrooms and the staircase needed to be removed as they were “full of damp”. It is concerning that over a year after the resident had been reporting damp in the property and works had been undertaken in the property, the property was being described as “full of damp”.
  7. On 22 November 2022, the landlord records stated that the chimney breast and ceilings were repaired. It said a mould treatment had also been completed. It is disappointing that following the report that the property was damp, the repairs took over 2 months to be completed. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 December 2022 and stated that there was still damp in the property. She said she was having asthma attacks, and her bed sheets were moist. She said the wallpaper in her bedroom was bubbling and wet. She said the walls had been decorated but not treated.
  8. Given the vulnerabilities in the household, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the risks to the family and whether the property was habitable. The Ombudsman has had sight of a letter from the resident’s GP dated 6 May 2022. The GP confirmed that one of the children had respiratory symptoms and they would fully support the resident’s application for rehousing if the property was damp. The landlord has stated that it had not received any medical letters. However, the resident’s repeated reports of the impact on the household’s health should have been enough for the landlord to have considered the risks in line with the HHSRS. It is a further failing that it did not do so.
  9. The landlord arranged a visit to the resident’s property on 25 January 2023. The landlord has not provided a report from the visit. An internal email dated 26 January 2023 stated that it had visited the property and that there were “quite a few repairs to do”. It said that the completed work was substandard. The first stage 2 response outlined the outstanding works which included plastering in the bedroom, hallway, and bathroom, and inspecting/repairing the PIV. It noted there was a lack of heating in the property and a minor leak on the boiler. It acknowledged the delays in carrying out the repairs and offered £100 for that.
  10. Following the first stage 2 response, repairs were aborted due to no access. The records do not provide the reasons for this. However, it is reasonable to consider that no access would contribute to delays in the work being carried out. The records show an internal communication on 7 March 2023 requesting someone to contact the resident in relation to the outstanding damp and repairs.
  11. In the landlord’s second stage 1 response it stated that it now had a dedicated team for all damp and mould works and different contractors, which was positive. It said it had booked a survey for 8 January 2024. The survey outlined that pointing was required, the bathroom fan did not work, trickle vents needed to be cleaned, there was damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom, and air vents in the bedrooms were covered. A further survey took place on 9 April 2024. It said that the damp was through poor heating, poor room layout, clutter, and over ventilating by the resident. It also noted that a new PIV unit needed to be installed and that the front and back bedrooms required a mould wash, new wallpaper and to be treated with anti fungal paint.
  12. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide information regarding what the resident could do to reduce condensation in the property in its second stage 2 response. However, in its first stage 2 response in January 2023 the landlord stated that once the boiler was fully working, it would revisit to demonstrate to the resident how to reduce moisture levels. There is no evidence that the landlord returned to do this.
  13. It is concerning that a working PIV unit would have also assisted with the issue, however, it was never repaired, and then it was removed. The records dated 11 December 2023 stated that the PIV was not working, that the resident had waited, and that she would now like it removed as she had a draught through the house. Prior to removing the unit, the landlord should have considered whether it was reasonable to remove the PIV and how that would impact the issue in the long-term. It is concerning that it was removed and there was no replacement or other solution provided for the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also considered this in its second stage 2 response, which would have enabled it to take accountability for its own failures.
  14. In this case, the landlord failed to effectively monitor the situation in accordance with its HHSRS obligations and its own damp and mould policy. Its responses were reactive rather than proactive, which often left the resident chasing the landlord. It is evident that many repairs were carried out in the property within the timeframe investigated. However, repairs were described as substandard and did not offer a long-term solution for the resident. The landlord’s latest stage 2 response placed much of the onus on the resident, which differed to its previous responses. While there were times of no access, the landlord should have been able to satisfy itself that it had taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the issue and appropriately support the household.
  15. The Ombudsman has therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs. While repairs have been carried out, it is concerning that the resident is still reporting damp in the property, and there is no clear action plan for how the issues will be resolved.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. From the evidence provided there were failures in the landlord’s record keeping which impacted the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould in the property. As already stated, it was difficult to determine from the records why repairs were raised and what action was taken at the time. The records do not show when the repair was raised only when it was completed, therefore it was difficult to consider whether the repairs were carried out in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures. Also, some repairs were marked as completed but then raised again later on. An example of this is with the PIV unit, this was initially marked as completed in August 2022.
  2. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. This would not only have benefitted the Ombudsman’s investigation, but it would also have ensured the landlord had oversight of the issue and the repairs required in the property. Internal correspondence dated 9 March 2023, shows that the landlord was unclear about what steps had been taken in this case, which was troubling.
  3. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. There were gaps in the landlord’s records which hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations. This also contributed to the landlord failing to effectively communicate and address the issues with the resident over a prolonged period of time. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping and what changes could be made, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and the concerns identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The Ombudsman considered it fair and reasonable to consider both sets of complaint responses provided by the landlord as they were linked to the same issue. While it is concerning that the resident had to report the same issues again after the first stage 2 response, due to the time which had passed, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide new complaint responses.
  2. As already highlighted, the landlord did not acknowledge the damp in its first complaint response. This was not appropriate and prolonged the issue, which led to the resident having to escalate her complaint. In its first stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident initially requested her complaintto be escalated on 20 July 2022. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged this and apologised for not resolving the complaint at its earliest opportunity.
  3. Aside from the complaint escalation in July 2022, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaints within the timescales outlined in its complaints policy, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. In its second stage 2 response the landlord stated that the delays in completing the works from the survey were due to the resident refusing them. It was unclear why the resident refused the works at the time and as stated, it was reasonable that this would have delayed the landlord. However, the Ombudsman has seen notes on other occasions where the resident had asked to rearrange appointments due to needing to collect her children from school. The Ombudsman has also had sight of the landlord acknowledging that the resident had requested notice of appointments and the landlord stating that there were occasions where it attended without notice. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this further in its complaint responses.
  5. While the landlord referred to a welfare visit in its final stage 2 response, it is disappointing that its previous complaint responses did not refer to the vulnerabilities in the household and the impact on the resident. As stated, it should have also considered the household’s health and the reported impact by the damp and mould in the property. In not doing so, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord was fair in its findings and offer of redress to the resident.
  6. Overall, the landlord offered a total of £200 compensation to the resident. £100 was for the delays in carrying out the repairs and the other £100 was for its complaint handling failure. The compensation was not proportionate to the overall delays in this case, or the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays. The landlord must pay a total of £1,668 in compensation which is broken down as follows:
    1. £918 which is based on approximately 10% of the resident’s rent. This is from the report that the property was full of damp on 7 September 2022 to the landlord’s second stage 1 response on 2 January 2024. This is to take into account that while repairs were carried out in the timeframe, the landlord lacked oversight in relation to the damp and mould. This likely contributed to the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of the property. This has only been considered up until the second stage 1 response due to the reports of no access which followed.
    2. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
    3. £600 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in carrying out the repairs and the time taken to chase the landlord. The landlord also failed to consider the risks and the vulnerabilities to the household. Therefore, this amount is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures in which the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders

  1. A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
  2. Due to the resident’s complaint that the issue is ongoing. The landlord must arrange a further inspection of the resident’s property. It must produce a report identifying the likely cause of any damp and mould, recommendations to remedy it, and a schedule of works with defined timescales for any work it is responsible for to be completed. The schedule of works must include consideration to the replacement of the PIV unit. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
  3. Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment taking into account the vulnerabilities reported within the household. A copy of the risk assessment must be provided to both the Ombudsman and the resident, including any follow up actions for the landlord.
  4. The landlord must review its record keeping and what changes could be made, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management and the concerns identified in this report.
  5. The landlord must pay a total of £1,668 to the resident. This includes the compensation of £200 already offered.
  6. The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.