Incommunities Limited (202346170)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom, living room and kitchen on 14 February 2023. The landlord carried out a damp survey on 5 March 2023 and attended on several occasions throughout 2023 to carry out repairs. The landlord completed all damp and mould related repairs on 1 February 2024.The resident raised concerns about the delay in repairs and its impact on her. The landlord had a record of the resident’s health vulnerabilities (heart condition).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed completing the repairs and should have acted more promptly given that several rooms in the house were affected by the damp and mould and the resident was unable to use her bedroom. It should have communicated better with the resident throughout the repair period. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures, committed to improving the service provided by its contractors and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
6. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould had a detrimental impact on her health. We do not have the expertise to assess medical evidence or conclude that there was a direct causal link between the condition of the property and any detriment to the family’s heath. Such claims are more appropriately decided through an insurance claim or by a court. We have, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

What we have looked at

8. The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom, living room and kitchen on 14 February 2023 and a damp survey took place on 5 March 2023, in 19 calendar days. While the landlord’s condensation and damp policy did not specify a timescale for diagnostic inspections, 19 days was not reasonable considering the landlord was aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities from her initial report. It therefore should have considered prioritising this survey in line with its repairs policy, which states it must recognise that vulnerable customers have different needs and where required it will adjust response times. Given the resident suffered from a heart condition, which the landlord was aware off, it should have prioritised carrying out the damp survey.
9. The survey recommended various remedial works, including refixing the glazing gasket to the lounge window, which was repaired on 5 May 2023, 61 days after the inspection. This exceeded both routine and unplanned major works timescales. Cavity wall insulation extraction and refill were completed in August 2023. Other recommended works included relaying loft insulation and repointing the front elevation and corner around the soil stack. According to the landlord’s notes, all jobs raised from the original survey were completed by July 2023. However, this does not align with the repair records as these were inspections rather than completed repairs.
10. The resident raised a further issue on 13 September 2023 that the bedroom wall was wet to touch. The landlord undertook a second damp survey in October 2023.  This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was responsive to the resident’s report. This survey raised concerns about inadequate heating. Thereafter, further internal and external remedial repairs were carried out including guttering, window repairs, cavity wall insulation, pointing works. The works were completed in February 2024.
11. During the 12-month period, from initial report in February 2023 to the works being completed in February 2024, the landlord raised various surveys and undertook the recommended remedial work to ensure all issues were addressed. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the repairs. It is not clear from the records when the landlord completed works to resolve the damp and mould in the kitchen and living room. However, it is clear that the bedroom issue remained outstanding throughout the 12-month period and significantly inconvenienced the resident as she could not use her bedroom. The 12-month delay was unreasonable, avoidable and far exceeded what could be considered acceptable. While outsourcing specialist work was reasonable, the landlord failed to implement effective oversight and monitoring to ensure timely completion of repairs.
12. When the landlord failed to meet expected timeframes or when repairs were prolonged, it should have maintained effective communication with the resident. The resident raised communication issues in her complaint. This was especially important given multiple contractors were involved. The resident and her family contacted the landlord several times due to the adverse impact and health concerns. There was no evidence of proactive contact from the landlord.
13. The resident should not have needed to chase or complain to prompt repairs. Landlords must proactively communicate during delays, explain reasons, and provide updated timeframes. In this case, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord, which was unreasonable and caused distress. The landlord acknowledged communication failures and offered compensation, which was appropriate. It also assisted the resident with a public liability claim and conducted property visits to identify outstanding works. This was appropriate and demonstrated an improved customer focused approach.
14. The landlord appropriately noted the resident’s vulnerabilities in the initial damp inspection request. Its responsive repairs policy required adapting its approach for vulnerable residents and making reasonable adjustments. Although the resident’s health condition was repeatedly raised with the landlord, we have seen no evidence of an adapted approach.
15. During the delay, the resident reported adverse impact from the damp. She was also inconvenienced by multiple repair requests and appointments. Landlords must demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to fully resolve issues and minimise distress. The landlord missed the 9 May 2023 pointing repair appointment and this caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident as she had to chase the landlord. Given the resident moved out of her bedroom on 27 February 2023, the landlord should have considered the severity of the damp and whether a temporary move was necessary. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this.
16. The landlord completed all the works by 1 February 2024 in relation to the bedroom, kitchen and living room, and all the additional works raised by the second survey carried out on 23 January 2024. According to the repair log, when the stage 2 response was sent, there were no outstanding repairs.
17. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the delay and its communication failures. It offered an apology and £600 compensation (£300 for delays and poor communication, and £300 for stress and inconvenience). While it was appropriate to use the complaint process to address the issues, the compensation was not proportionate to the length of the delay and the adverse impact. The resident, a vulnerable individual, was unable to use her bedroom from 27 February 2023 to 15 January 2024 and the landlord did not appropriately address this in its final response. However, on 22 March 2024, the landlord offered further compensation as the earlier offer did not account for the loss of the resident’s bedroom. It offered an additional £600 compensation, and this was appropriate.
18. In summary, although the repair delays amounted to maladministration, the landlord took steps to put things right. It acknowledged its failings, apologised, offered increased compensation and completed the repairs. The total compensation of £1,200 was within the higher end of amounts set in our remedies guidance. It was proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident. The landlord made a reasonable offer to resolve the matter and is recommended to pay the compensation if it has not already done so.
19. The landlord acknowledged the need to learn from this complaint. In its final response, it stated that it shared the complaint with senior management and committed to service improvements within its repairs and damp response teams. However, it did not demonstrate how it would implement these improvements. We therefore recommended that the landlord review its handling of this matter.

20. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint on 22 September 2023. This was within 1 working day of the resident raising the complaint on 21 September 2023, and within the 10-working day timeframe of its complaints policy.
21. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 22 December 2023. The landlord made an extension request on 24 January 2024 and issued its final complaint response on 6 February 2024, in 28 working days. Although this was outside of the landlord’s 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints, this was reasonable and within its extended timeframe allowed in its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
22. The landlord responded within its policy timeframe both at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. Therefore we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

23. It is important that landlords promptly raise necessary repairs, oversee extensive works, and maintain effective communication with residents to ensure adverse impact is minimised.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord generally displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right. However, there were some gaps and insufficiently detailed notes about completed repairs.