Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202316078)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316078

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

7 June 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. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Handling of the subsequent temporary decant of the resident.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved to the property, a 2-bed mid-terrace house, in November 2022 with her young baby.
The landlord has stated that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on the system for the household. It did however advise that the resident was transferred to the property from another property owned by the landlord as she was fleeing domestic violence.
The first reference to damp and mould within the landlord’s repair logs for the property was on 13 January 2023. The resident had reported that there was damp in the chimney breast in the front room. The record indicates that the resident had made the landlord aware of this issue previously as they state the property “had damp…when she first moved in”. The resident asked for an update following a then recent damp inspection by the landlord and said that the issue had spread to the kitchen, living room and bedroom.
On 5 March 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and said she wanted to raise a complaint due to the time it was taking the landlord to resolve the damp and mould. She said that the mould was impacting food in her cupboards and there was a strong smell of damp in the property.
The landlord decanted the resident to hotel accommodation between 11 April 2023 and 25 April 2023 while it completed damp and mould works to the property.
On 9 June 2023 the resident again advised the landlord that she wanted to make a complaint. She said:
1. She had been told prior to moving into the property that it was in good condition and free from damp and mould.
2. When she moved into the property with her newborn baby, she could see damp patches in the baby’s room and there was a strong smell of damp.
3. She could also see that patches of damp had been treated in the main bedroom.
4. The surveyor visited to inspect the issue but she felt the landlord did not communicate with her and she had had to chase it and its contractors for updates.
5. The property had rising damp and she was given 3 days’ notice before being decanted to a hotel. This was not an acceptable timeframe to pack and move on her own with a baby.
6. The decant hotel was unsuitable and while the landlord had said it would arrange an early check-in her room was not available when she arrived.
7. The following day she was moved to a different hotel.
8. When she returned home after the works were completed, she found the property in an “extremely poor condition”. There was plaster and paint on the carpets and radiators.
9. The damp and mould in the property had impacted her asthma and her baby had experienced bronchiolitis.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 13 June 2023.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s records demonstrate that it extended the complaint response timeframe to 3 July 2023. This was because the resident had experienced a family bereavement and so was not contactable. It extended the timeframe again on 30 June 2023 to 7 July 2023 as it had been unable to contact the resident.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord arranged to visit the resident at the property on 6 July 2023. The resident had to cancel the appointment as her baby was unwell and she had to take him to hospital. On 7 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had extended the complaint timeframe as a result.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023. It said:
1. It upheld her complaint.
2. It apologised for the service she had received and that she was “offered a property that was not fit for purpose”.
3. It also apologised for the way she was treated during the decant and for the condition of the property on her return.
4. Its communication and ownership of the issues could have been “far better”.
5. Its contractor would attend on 12 July 2022 and:
  1. Make good all decoration.
  2. Clear the garden of all debris.
  3. Reimburse the resident for the cost of a new lounge carpet including the cost of fitting.
  4. The landlord offered to visit after the works were complete to inspect the works.
6. It would provide £50 decorating vouchers for the rear bedroom and would plaster skim the front bedroom.
7. It offered £300 compensation for the inconvenience she and her baby had experienced.
8. It could not compensate for physical or mental illness through its complaints policy but provided the details for its insurer should she wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 20 July 2023. She said she did not feel that the compensation offered was adequate for the “upheaval, stress, lack of support, and everything [she and her baby had] been through”. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 25 July 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It said:
1. It understood that the resident was unhappy with the standard of the work completed by the contractor on 12 July 2022.
2. A supervisor for the contractor had inspected the work and was happy with the standard. It had called the resident to check she was also happy but she had not responded.
3. The resident had not mentioned that she was unhappy with the standard of the work during communications with the landlord. Nor had she taken the landlord up on its offer to post inspect the works.
4. Additional work had been completed to the property – the kitchen had been retiled and the whole of the downstairs had been wallpapered in the resident’s choice of paper.
5. Its contractor would pay for and fit the resident’s choice of carpet in the lounge.
6. A leak had been identified to the roof of the neighbouring property; this was impacting the baby’s bedroom. The leak would be repaired by 11 August 2023 and the bedroom replastered ready for decorating.
7. The resident had queried why only the walls in the baby’s bedroom were being replastered and not the whole room. It was standard practice to only replaster the affected areas. It had however agreed to replaster the whole room as a gesture of goodwill.
8. The work carried out by the contractor had been completed to an acceptable standard and the resident had not raised any concerns previously.
9. It had offered the resident £100 decorating vouchers for the baby’s bedroom. This was a reasonable amount.
10. While it upheld the findings of the stage 1 complaint response it did agree that the level of compensation offered was not adequate. It increased its compensation offer from £300 to £500.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 30 October 2023 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp works and decant and the level of compensation offered in its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can make legally binding judgements, including liability. The resident can seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury.
Therefore, while the serious nature of the matter is noted, the resident’s concern about the health impacts of the damp and mould will not be considered in this report. Reference may be made to the resident’s mention of health issues in the report to provide context and will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. We have also considered the distress and inconvenience that was caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) to maintain the structure and exterior of the premises.
It is noted that the tenancy agreement states, “Apart from repairs agreed at the sign-up, no other repairs will be carried out within the first 12 weeks of the tenancy unless they pose an immediate health and safety risk”. While this clause was not applied in this case it is nonetheless of serious concern to this Service that the clause is not in keeping with the landlord’s statutory obligations under the LTA 1985.
It would be for the courts and not this Service to determine whether this contractual term is unlawful. A recommendation has however been made for the landlord to review its tenancy agreement to ensure that it does not contain any clauses or wording that is not in keeping with the spirit of the LTA 1985.
Section 9a of the LTA 1985 requires landlords to ensure that properties are fit for human habitation on the first day of a tenancy and that they remain fit throughout the tenancy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould issues in its property amount to a hazard and require remedying. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing which states that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS.
The landlord’s void policy states that all properties will meet a minimum lettable standard and comply with relevant health and safety requirements.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete:
1. Emergency repairs (where there is a risk or potential risk of harm to residents or significant damage to the property) within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs within 28 working days.
3. Non urgent and major repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy which was implemented in October 2023.
The damp and mould policy outlines 3 categories of damp and mould:
1. Category 3 – a small amount of mould around a window usually caused by minor condensation and easily treatable with regular cleaning.
2. Category 2 – mould (usually caused by minor water ingress or condensation) in a bathroom or kitchen, treatable with regular cleaning.
3. Category 1 – severe damp and mould anywhere in the property. Or an area of mould larger than 2 square meters on a wall or ceiling in a living space where there is a child, elderly person, or individual with health issues in the property.
The policy says the landlord will inspect category 1 hazards within 10 working days and category 2 and 3 hazards within 20 working days. It aims to complete repairs to category 1 hazards within 28 working days of the survey date but states timescales may be extended depending on the extent of the works and whether the resident needs to be decanted.
The landlord has provided its pre-void inspection report completed on 4 October 2022. This did not identify any issues with damp or mould. Nor did the post void inspection report completed on 14 October 2022.
We have not seen evidence that demonstrates that there was damp and mould present at the commencement of the tenancy. It is acknowledged however that the resident states that she saw evidence of such when she moved in and that this had to some extent been treated by the landlord. While we cannot corroborate this from the evidence provided, the timeframe between the tenancy start date and first report of damp and mould, 2 months, suggests that there may have been an issue at the start of the tenancy.
It is clear from the evidence that the resident had reported damp and mould sometime between the start of the tenancy in November 2022 and the first mention in the landlord’s records on 13 January 2023. During this timeframe the landlord completed a damp survey. This Service has not seen evidence within the information provided by the landlord of when the survey took place, why it was ordered, or what its findings were. This issue is explored below in the record keeping assessment.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 16 January 2023 and asked for an update on the damp and mould. The landlord’s internal emails show that it raised a damp and mould inspection on this date. We have not however seen evidence of this survey being completed or of its findings. That the landlord has not evidenced that it completed an inspection is a failing. This is particularly concerning considering that there was a baby in the property.
The resident telephoned the landlord again more than a month later on 14 February 2023 as no one had contacted her regarding the damp and mould. She stated she had a new baby and the mould was getting worse. This Service considers that it was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to inform the resident of its intentions and progress and that she had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for a response.
Following the resident’s call the landlord emailed its contractor and asked for an update on 15 February 2023. It appropriately chased this again on 3 March 2023 as it had not received a response.
This Service has not seen evidence of what happened between this date and 30 March 2023 when the landlord advised the resident she would need to be decanted for damp and mould works to be completed. This is again explored in the record keeping assessment.
It is accepted that the landlord’s updated damp and mould policy was not in place at the time of the events in this report. Therefore we have not assessed the landlord’s actions against this policy. However, we have taken the policy timescales into consideration given that it was implemented soon after the events complained of.
If the policy had been in force at the time, the evidence suggests that the damp and mould in the property would reasonably have been considered a category 1 hazard. This was due to the extent of the issue and because there was a baby in the property. The landlord would therefore have been expected to complete a damp survey within 10 days of receiving a report. We cannot determine whether it did so as the initial report has not been recorded, nor has the initial survey.
The landlord would then have been expected to complete any works within 28 working days of the survey. In this case it took the landlord more than twice this timeframe to commence the works. There is no evidence to suggest that this delay was unavoidable. As such, while we have not assessed the landlord’s actions against its policy, the evidence does not suggest that it acted in a manner that was proactive or reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident was decanted from the property on 11 April 2023 to allow the works to be completed. This was 3 months after her first recorded report of damp and mould. Considering that she had made the landlord aware that there was a young baby in the property, that the issue was worsening, and that it was impacting their health, this delay was unreasonable.
This Service would have expected the landlord to prioritise completion of a risk assessment to satisfy itself that it was responding appropriately to the conditions in the property and limiting any further negative impact on the household.
On 18 April the resident also asked the landlord to confirm that her property would be cleaned following the works and before she moved back in. The landlord confirmed that it would be clean and dust-free.
The resident raised concerns in her stage 1 complaint that the property was left in a poor condition following the damp and mould works. The landlord agreed that the condition was unacceptable and arranged for the contractor to return and rectify the issues. It also offered to inspect the property after the works were complete. This was fair and reasonable.
The resident said in her stage 2 complaint that she was unhappy with the works carried out by the contractor to rectify the poor condition it had initially left the property in. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident raised these concerns with the landlord prior to her stage 2 complaint or that she accepted the landlord’s offer to post-inspect the work.
It is encouraging to note that the landlord has advised this Service that all its surveyors have completed recognised HHSRS training. It has also stated that since the events in this case it has enrolled several of its void inspectors on a damp and mould training course. It states it has also purchased specialist equipment to assist void inspectors in identifying damp and mould. While this is positive and will hopefully reduce the risk of further failings in this regard, it does not diminish the detriment experienced by the resident.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The delay in resolving the damp and mould were particularly concerning as there was a young baby with health issues in the property. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Handling of the subsequent temporary decant of the resident.

The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have a decant policy but that it is considering developing one. A recommendation had been made in this regard.
Considering the extent of works required to resolve the damp and mould in the property it was reasonable that the landlord decided to decant the resident.
This Service has concerns regarding the suitability of a hotel room as decant accommodation for a mother with a young baby, particularly a baby who was experiencing ill-health. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered any other form of temporary accommodation such as a decant to another of its properties or to a short-term holiday let or similar. That it has not demonstrated that it considered other options was a failing.
It would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would consider the particular needs of the resident and her household and ensure that the decant accommodation was suitable to meet them. It is accepted that the landlord did make some effort to put things in place that would make the accommodation more suitable such as buying a baby bath and arranging an (unsuccessful) early check-in. Its efforts however failed to make the accommodation suitable and were the cause of avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and proposed that it decant her on 3 April 2023. The resident raised concerns about this date and instead suggested that 5 April 2023 would be more convenient. Later the same day the landlord contacted the resident again and said that works would commence on 11 April 2023. Given the severity of the damp and mould this timescale was not unreasonable.
The landlord provided the resident with the details for the hotel on 5 April 2023. It agreed to arrange an early check-in at the hotel. It also stated that while the hotel was unable to provide a fridge in the room for the baby’s medication it had agreed to store the medication in a fridge for her. The landlord agreed to arrange a taxi for her from the property to the hotel.
It is of particular concern that, despite being made aware that the baby was on medication which needed to be refrigerated, the landlord continued to place the resident in a hotel room without a fridge. While it arranged for the medication to be stored elsewhere in the hotel this was not a satisfactory resolution. The resident would be inconvenienced in having to retrieve the medication to ensure it could be administered to her baby in line with medical guidance. This would be particularly difficult as there was no other adult in the household to assist her so she would have to take the baby with her.
When the resident arrived at the decant hotel on 11 April 2023 the room was not ready for her. She contacted the landlord and expressed her frustration and raised concerns about the suitability of the hotel due to its location near a busy road.
It is noted that the resident had been made aware of the location of the hotel 6 days before the booking so she could reasonably have raised concerns about the road at that time. While it is accepted that the fact that the room was not ready was beyond the landlord’s control this clearly caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was left waiting with her belongings and baby unable to access her accommodation.
The landlord arranged to move her to another decant hotel the following day. It was positive that the landlord agreed to move the resident as she was unhappy with the original arrangement. Moving all her belongings to another hotel after only one night would have caused the resident further inconvenience however it is acknowledged that this was arranged at the resident’s request.
During the decant the resident received an allowance of up to £25 per day for daily living expenses, she also received up to £15 per day for living expenses for her son. It also reimbursed her for travel to and from medical appointments for her son, a baby bath, and 2 uses of the hotel’s laundry service.
On 18 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and expressed that she was struggling to pay for her daily living costs as she then had to wait to be reimbursed by the landlord. It was a failing that the resident experienced worry at being able to afford the upfront daily expenses of things like food for herself and her baby.
It is acknowledged that the landlord has advised this Service that since the events in this case it has reviewed its approach to reimbursing expenses for decants. It now pays the daily allowance up front to the resident’s bank account and where it knows the length of the decant. This is positive and would clearly have been beneficial to the resident in this case. This Service would encourage the landlord however to also consider implementing a decant policy to standardise its approach to such situations.
The landlord did try to make arrangements to mitigate any inconvenience to the resident and was responsive to her needs during the decant. The decision to place her in a hotel was however not practical in the resident’s circumstances. While a decant was necessary it is unclear why alternative accommodation was not considered. While the landlord covered the resident’s living expenses during the decant, she experienced inconvenience and worry as she had to pay these costs upfront and claim them back later. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant of the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord aims to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
The complaints policy states that if the landlord needs to extend the timescale for its complaint response it will keep the resident informed of the reasons. The landlord will also agree a revised timescale which will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The compensation policy states that it does not apply in cases of decants in which circumstance the landlord’s decant policy applies. The landlord has however as discussed earlier advised that it does not have a decant policy. It is unclear why such a reference has been made in the circumstances. However, as a result, there is uncertainty in relation to how compensation is considered in cases where a resident has been decanted. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to review its compensation policy to ensure it does not refer to policies it does not have.
On 5 March 2023 the records show that the resident telephoned the landlord and said she wanted to raise a complaint. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) states that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation”. The resident was clearly dissatisfied and explicitly asked the landlord to log a complaint. That it did not do so was a failing and delayed the handling of the resident’s complaint by 3 months. This was inappropriate.
The resident complained again in June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy and the Code. Its response to the stage 1 complaint was delayed by 12 working days however it is acknowledged that this was mainly due to problems contacting the resident. It did update the resident each time it extended the complaint timeframe, explain why it was doing so, and give an revised response date. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was very thorough and contained all the components identified by the Code as essential elements in a complaint response.
The stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for several service failings which it acknowledged. It outlined what actions it would take to put the issue right and offered the resident compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced.
It is noted that the landlord also signposted the resident to its insurer if she wished to make a personal injury claim for any physical or mental impacts from the experience. This was good practice.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within the timeframe outlined in its policy and in the Code. The response addressed each of the resident’s concerns reasonably and provided adequate and clear reasoning for its decisions. It upheld its stage 1 complaint decision but increased its offer of compensation to £500 as it agreed that its previous offer was not adequate. It was right that it did so.
This Service considers that, had the landlord provided a detailed breakdown of how it calculated its compensation offer, this would allow the resident and this Service to better assess whether the offer was proportionate. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to do so in future cases.
It is accepted that the landlord carried out several additional decorative works as a ‘goodwill’ gesture, paid to replace the resident’s damaged carpet, and provided £100 in decorating vouchers in addition to its offer of compensation. However, considering the significant inconvenience and distress, time and trouble experienced by the resident and her newborn baby we do not consider that the landlord’s offer of £500 was sufficient. An order for further compensation has therefore been made.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response the resident said:
1. She had raised her concerns about the quality of the contractor’s work.
2. She would prefer to use a different company to fit the carpet as she was uncomfortable with the landlord’s contractor doing any further work.
3. She had been offered £50 decorating voucher per bedroom, not £100 for one bedroom.
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. The resident had not mentioned to the landlord that she was unhappy with the works.
2. The contractor would pay for another company to supply and fit the carpet.
3. It apologised if it had misunderstood. It still however felt that £100 in decorating vouchers was fair.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded reasonably to the objections raised by the resident and explained why it had come to its decision on the complaint.
Overall the landlord delayed in recording the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This delayed the process and the resident’s access to this Service by 3 months. While its subsequent complaint handling was good it would have been beneficial for it to provide a breakdown of the compensation offered. In this case the compensation did not provide proportionate redress for the detriment experienced by the resident and her baby. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping.

While the first reference to damp and mould within the repair logs was on 13 January 2023 it is clear that the resident had made the landlord aware of this issue previously but that this is not demonstrated in the records. This is indicative of record keeping issues.
The landlord raised an order for a damp and mould inspection on 16 January 2023. We have not seen evidence however of this survey being completed or its findings. This was a record keeping failing.
This Service has not seen evidence of actions between 3 March 2023 and 30 March 2023. It is clear that decisions had been made and the landlord advised the resident she would need to be decanted. That evidence has not been provided relating this decision is further evidence of a record keeping issue.
A landlord should have adequate systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. Given the record keeping failures identified by this investigation, we have made a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent temporary decant of the resident.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,200 which comprises:
1. £300 for time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property between January and March 2023.
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property from March 2023 onwards.
3. £150 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the subsequent temporary decant of the resident.
4. £300 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the subsequent temporary decant of the resident.
5. £150 for time and trouble in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. This amount is inclusive of the £500 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response. If the landlord has already paid this amount, it should deduct this from the ordered compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its compensation policy to ensure:
1. It does not refer to policies it does not have.
2. It is considering compensation fairly and consistently.
3. It provides residents with a detailed breakdown of how compensation awards have been calculated.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its tenancy agreement to ensure that it is in keeping with the spirit of the LTA 1985.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to consider the issues highlighted in this case and further consider whether a decant policy is necessary.
The landlord should review staff training to ensure that offers of compensation provide a detailed breakdown of how it has calculated the compensation amount including any adverse effect or impact of the service failure on the resident, and the time taken to resolve the failure.
The landlord to review its policies and practices in knowledge and information management. The review should be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and should include:
1. Carrying out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations.
2. A review of how it records specialist inspections, including surveyor reports.
3. The storage, retention and supply of information related to complaints.