Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202414276)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414276

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

19 February 2025

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord’s vulnerability records show the resident has epilepsy. The resident also told the landlord he has asthma.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 March 2024. He said he was unhappy with ongoing damp and mould, and that the property condition impacted his health. He said it also damaged his belongings and caused increased heating costs. The resident said he was concerned as he had received no contact from the landlord about how it planned to resolve the issues. He also asked for decorating vouchers which it had previously promised.
  3. On 18 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. It:
    1. Found the resident first reported damp and mould in 2019. It previously did repairs to address this.
    2. Was sorry to hear the issues impacted the resident’s health. It said it previously advised him to heat and ventilate his home to prevent moisture build-up. It advised of support available if he needed help with costs or budgeting.
    3. Had no record of offering decoration vouchers. It agreed to pay compensation to reflect this.
    4. Inspected the property as the resident reported suspected rising damp. It found a wet patch on the living room carpet due to water ingress. Its contractors would contact him to check the roof and gullies. Its contractors had also contacted him to install an extractor unit for ventilation.
    5. Arranged plastering works to address a crack in the bedroom and repair his windowsills. It booked this for 9 April 2024 and 10 April 2024.
    6. Apologised that the resident felt staff members had not helped him. It said this was not the service it hoped to provide.
    7. Offered him £450 compensation. This consisted of:
      1. £300 towards the cost of a new carpet.
      2. £50 for decorating costs.
      3. £50 for dehumidifier running costs.
      4. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2024. He was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. He felt this did not cover the costs for his damaged belongings. The resident explained the landlord had still not improved its communication. He also reported ongoing issues with damp and mould and the impact on his health. He added that he believed repairs remained outstanding.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2024. It upheld the complaint. It:
    1. Found the property condition improved between inspections in November 2023 and April 2024.
    2. Had completed works to check the roof and gullies as agreed in its earlier response. It had not yet installed the extractor unit due to difficulties in finding a suitable position in the resident’s home. It asked its contractors to inspect this again.
    3. Inspected the property on 19 June 2024. It found no visible mould but high humidity levels. It would raise works to remove a bush bordering the living room wall. It would also apply a mould resistant paint in the bedroom. It would reinspect the property in 4 weeks to monitor the conditions.
    4. Offered a further £250 compensation for the inconvenience with his damaged belongings. It also reoffered the original £450 compensation, making a total offer of £700.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He remained unhappy with the outstanding damp and mould within the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 12 November 2024.
  7. On 27 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had reviewed its responses after gathering evidence requested for this investigation. It found further failings in its response to reports of damp and mould. It increased its offer of compensation to a total of £1,400. This consisted of:
    1. £700 offered in its stage 2 response.
    2. £250 for its delayed escalation and response at stage 2.
    3. £100 for its delayed repair to replace the double-glazed “unit” in the bedroom.
    4. £100 for its delayed repair for plastering works to the cracked walls.
    5. £250 for the damage to his personal belongings caused by its delayed repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s response to the damp and mould impacted his health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something impacted a resident’s health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect. He may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. He should enquire with the landlord about this if he wishes. We will, however, consider whether the issues caused any distress or inconvenience.
  2. Similarly, the resident asked us to award compensation for his damaged belongings. We cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Either a court or an insurer should make such decisions. However, we have considered the landlord’s policies and procedures, and any distress caused.
  3. The resident has experienced issues with damp and mould since 2019. He continued to experience issues after the complaints process ended. For fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and try to put things right. He can raise a new complaint to the landlord for any new matters which have occurred since the final complaint response if needed.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

  1. For context, the resident first reported damp and mould between April 2019 and February 2021. He then reported further damp and mould issues in November 2023.
  2. On 21 November 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in the living room and kitchen. When doing so, he told the landlord he had asthma. He also reported cracked plaster around his bedroom window. The landlord inspected the property within 5 working days, on 28 November 2023. Its damp and mould policy states that it will act quickly if a resident raises concerns about their health. It therefore acted appropriately to the resident’s initial report.
  3. The landlord found the property was “unable to breathe sufficiently.” It is unclear what is meant by this. However, on 8 December 2023, it raised works to remove bricks to check the wall cavity. It is unclear why it took 8 working days to raise this job. This would have added to the overall delays in resolving the damp and mould. However, there is no evidence to show that it checked the cavity. This is a failing.
  4. Between 15 January 2024 and 31 May 2024, the landlord raised 15 repair jobs related to damp and mould. Overall, the repair records lack detail. They contain vague descriptions for the works raised such as “inspector” and “bedroom window.” The records do not show what repairs it identified and what works the landlord had agreed to complete. The records also do not contain detail about the outcome of the appointments. Due to this, we cannot clearly establish the works the landlord identified or completed at each appointment. We therefore cannot assess whether it acted appropriately in response to the damp and mould reports.
  5. The landlord’s damp and mould policy specify the timescales that it must complete works by. It defines these by the category (1/2/3) rating of the hazards in the property. The landlord’s records do not show the categories present throughout the time of the reports. We therefore cannot assess whether it acted in line with its policy or not. Additionally, we cannot assess that it considered the hazards posed with the repairs.
  6. There is no evidence to show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding the issues and how it would resolve them. The landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to the resident during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. This is a record keeping failure. Instead, it is evident the resident asked for updates on 4 occasions during this time. By not initiating the communication, the landlord understandably caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  7. We reasonably expect that a thorough inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all potential causes. This includes leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. Doing so would involve checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, DPC, brickwork, plumbing, external drains/gulleys, rainwater goods as well as the airflow and extraction within the building.
  8. The landlord inspected the property on 3 occasions between 21 November 2023 and 19 June 2024. However, it has not provided us with any inspection reports to show whether it fully inspected the above areas. It should have documented this. Also, the landlord’s repair records do not include details of the last inspection. When the resident asked for updates about this appointment, it told her it had no records of the inspection. Its poor record keeping therefore understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord’s inspection on 8 April 2024 identified works to check the drains and roof. It checked the drains on 19 April 2024. However, as of June 2024, it had not received the outcome of the drainage CCTV survey. It is therefore unclear whether it needed to complete further works to the drains. It also took 2 months to check the roof on 18 June 2024. This delay was not appropriate given the ongoing issues the resident experienced during this time. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed or updated during this time.
  10. It took over 4 months to install an extractor unit, which the landlord later did on 28 August 2024. Throughout the reports, the landlord repeatedly told the resident to ventilate and heat his home to prevent moisture build-up. The resident told the landlord it felt like this blamed his lifestyle. While this advice was correct, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the delayed repairs also contributed to these conditions. It had found water ingress during an inspection and awarded compensation for the damage this caused to his carpet. It is therefore clear the issue was not solely related to his living factors.
  11. Additionally, our spotlight report on damp and mould states that it can be too “simplistic” to blame residents for lifestyle issues. This includes for reasons such as drying their clothes inside. The report also notes that many properties were not designed for modern living and so it cannot blame the lack of adequate laundry facilities on residents. This is especially relevant given the resident lives in a flat. It should therefore avoid placing such blame on its residents.
  12. During this time, the resident told the landlord that he struggled to afford his electricity bill. This was due to the dehumidifier running costs. In its complaint responses the landlord offered £50 compensation towards this. It also explained it could refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment team and could provide advice with budgeting. While this was appropriate advice, it is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence offering such support earlier when the resident raised these concerns.
  13. It is concerning that throughout the reports, the resident told the landlord his health was suffering. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the damp and mould. However, this should have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident. It could have also assessed whether it posed a health and safety risk to him. Its failure to do so was not appropriate.
  14. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged that the damp and mould issues remained ongoing. It offered compensation for damaged belongings and costs incurred. However, it did not consider the impact of any failings in its response to his reports and its overall handling of its investigations and remedial works. It therefore failed to offer compensation towards the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  15. In the final complaint response, the landlord said it would complete further works. This included removing a bush outside the living room and applying mould resistant paint in the bedroom. It took over 1 month to complete the painting, which it did on 26 July 2024. It is unclear why this delay occurred. There is no evidence to show whether it removed the bush. The landlord had also committed to reinspect the property in 4 weeks to monitor the progress. However, the repair records do not show whether it did this.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2024 after he escalated his complaint to us. It reviewed the complaint and increased its compensation offer. It found it had not completed repairs within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This included delays with plastering and replacing the bedroom window. It also awarded amounts towards the damage to the resident’s belongings. The total award for its response to damp and mould was now £1,100 compensation.
  17. This offer was significantly more than the landlord’s award during the complaints process. This included amounts for decorative and electricity costs, delayed repairs, and inconvenience for damaged belongings. However, this did not include an amount towards distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
  18. While it was appropriate for the landlord to review its offer, the amount was not proportionate given the failings identified in this report. The landlord has not yet identified the cause of damp and mould. We note it has since completed further works such as installing thermal boarding. However, there is a lack of evidence to show it took appropriate steps to find the cause of the issues when it first occurred, or throughout the complaints process. If it had, it could have resolved the matter much sooner. The resident understandably remains concerned with the ongoing damp and mould in his home.
  19. Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident a further £650 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its response to damp and mould. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact. This amount is in addition to the amount offered by the landlord in November 2024.

The associated complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Following an escalation request, it will acknowledge the escalation within 5 working days. It will then respond within 20 working days of the escalation. At both stages, it can extend its timescale by 10 working days if it needs more time. It must update the resident and provide details of how to contact us.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 6 March 2024. The landlord took 11 working days to acknowledge the complaint. It did so on 21 March 2024. During this time without an acknowledgement, the resident asked whether it had received his complaint. It could have avoided this if it had responded in line with its published timescales.
  3. The landlord said it would provide its response within 10 working days. This would have been by 5 April 2024. However, it wrote to the resident on 3 April 2024 to request an extension to this timescale. It said it would respond within a further 10 working days by 18 April 2024. It later did so. The resident was unhappy with the extension. However, the landlord acted in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was appropriate to manage his expectations.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2024. There is no evidence to show that it acknowledged the complaint. This caused him to ask it to escalate his complaint again on 10 May 2024. It is unclear why the landlord then asked if he wanted to escalate his complaint, given he had already requested this. He asked it again to do this on 18 May 2024 and 21 May 2024.
  5. On 21 May 2024, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It understandably caused him time and trouble in escalating his complaint. It was a further failing that it did not provide him with an estimated timescale to respond by. It therefore missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations of when it would respond to him.
  6. On 17 June 2024, the landlord told the resident it would need more time to respond to the complaint. It said it would respond by 24 June 2024, which it later did. It therefore acted in line with its policy and the Code in providing this extension.
  7. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it offered £50 compensation. This was for its delayed response at stage 1. It did not offer any redress for its complaint handling failures at stage 2. However, in November 2024, it reviewed the complaint. It offered a further £250 compensation for its handling of the resident’s escalation request.
  8. The landlord’s review in November 2024 apologised for not giving advice of how to make a personal injury claim through its insurers. While it then provided the advice, the delay in doing so was not appropriate. Similarly, it found it did not appropriately respond to his concerns of damaged items. In line with its compensation policy, it should have requested evidence related to the items. It would then consider compensation based on the value of the damaged belongings. It was appropriate for it to explain this within its review letter and offer compensation for this failing. However, it did not explain that he could make a claim to its insurers for damaged belongings. This is a further failing.
  9. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate. By not responding to his concerns at the time, the resident would have understandably felt ignored. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to him.
  10. Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns with an offer of £50 decoration vouchers, which he had not received. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained it had no records of offering this. However, the landlord’s records show 2 references to “vouchers” in March 2024. It is therefore unclear why it said it had no records about this. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for it to offer compensation for the same amount to put things right.
  11. Considering the above, the overall offer of £300 compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling at both stages was proportionate to the failings identified. This was an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance. It reflected the level of time and trouble the resident spent chasing the landlord. For that reason, we have not made a further award of compensation.
  12. We assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures. It is positive that the landlord has now made a reasonable offer for its complaint handling. However, it made this offer 5 months after its stage 2 response. Therefore, it failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process. It missed an opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with our dispute resolution principles and for that reason we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples within this.
    2. Pay the £1,400 compensation offered by the landlord in November 2024.
    3. Pay a further £650 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. It should pay this directly to the resident and not his rent account.
    4. Provide details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the resident’s damaged belongings. It should provide this in writing and offer reasonable support if requested.
    5. Complete a damp and mould survey of the property. A member of its senior management or a surveyor should complete this to find a full diagnosis of potential causes. It should then write to the resident to confirm its findings and an action plan for any required repairs. This should be in writing and include appointment dates and details of the works required. It should provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider providing training to its complaint handling staff. Specifically, about sending acknowledgements at both stages in line with its complaints policy.