Longhurst Group Limited (202119021)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119021

Longhurst Group Limited

6 November 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports of mould on his wet room flooring.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident initially reported mould on the wet room floor on 29 March 2021 and a contractor attended on 21 April 2021 to complete a mould wash. The resident reported the issue had recurred on 23 July 2021 and an appointment was subsequently attended on 5 August 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 9 September 2021 as he had reported the issues with the wet room flooring on numerous occasions over the previous six months. He said that the flooring was mouldy, so was unsafe and a health issue. He stated a contractor had attended, but he had not been updated on any further works. In his complaint escalation, he disputed the landlord’s solution to complete a mould wash, as it had previously not improved the issue.
5. In the landlord’s final response on 19 January 2022, it advised it would chemically treat the floor, using a specialist contractor. It also stated a surveyor would attend after the works had been completed to inspect the repair. It offered a total of £100 compensation due the time taken to arrange follow-on appointments and complete the repair.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he stated he remained dissatisfied as the mould treatments had not resolved the issue. He stated the flooring was dangerous and he wanted the flooring replaced or a shower tray installed, as recommended by the surveyor on 7 July 2022. He wanted increased compensation due to the time taken to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

7. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to bathroom fixtures and fittings. As a result, the landlord is responsible for investigating the resident’s reports of mould on the wet room floor, and providing advice on how to avoid or treat the mould, if it is established to be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s website outlines the resident’s responsibilities regarding damp and mould and provides advice on how to reduce it. The repairs policy states that appointed repairs will be completed within 21 days.
8. In this case, the landlord recognised that the amount of time taken to resolve the mould on the wet room flooring was not in line with its service standards. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. The landlord initially responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of mould on the wet room flooring, as it arranged appointments following his initial report on 29 March 2021 and his subsequent report that the mould had recurred on 23 July 2021, within a reasonable timeframe. However, following the second appointment on 5 August 2021, the resident reported that the contractor took photos but no further works were carried out. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord identified the delay in follow-on works in its stage one response and arranged an appointment on 6 October 2021, to complete a further mould wash. The landlord demonstrated that it recognised its failing to successfully complete the repair, and took steps to put things right, as it rearranged the appointment and offered the resident £50 compensation.
10. The landlord is expected to complete the actions outlined in its complaint responses and inform the resident of any appropriate reasons if it is unable to fulfil the proposed actions within a reasonable timeframe. There was a further delay in successfully resolving the issue of mould on the wet room flooring as a contractor attended on 6 October 2021, but the resident reported that the mould removal was unsuccessful. This would not necessarily be evidence of service failure, as although the repair did not resolve the issue, the landlord had acted in line with advice from its contractor and taken steps to complete the repair. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding further work until 3 December 2021 when it advised that it would have to attempt an additional mould wash before it would consider alternative options.
11. It was reasonable that the landlord initially completed mould washes, however, if numerous repair attempts fail to resolve the issue, the landlord should consider alternative options. The resident escalated the complaint, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s suggestion to complete another mould wash, as it had not previously made an improvement. He requested for the flooring to be replaced, or a shower tray to be installed (as it was currently a wet room). The landlord had proposed using a specialist contractor, which was a reasonable action before considering alternative options. It was understandable that the resident initially declined the repair, due to similar unsuccessful works, however, ultimately it was an appropriate action for the landlord to take, and as such it cannot necessarily be held accountable for the additional delay in the works as a result. Despite this, given the inconvenience to the resident, it was appropriate the landlord offered an additional £50 compensation.
12. The repair records show that on several occasions, the contractor advised the landlord that the mould was caused by water on the floor, that had not been removed down the waste pipe, and it was recommended that the resident cleaned the shower area, to remove the water. However, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this. Given that the landlord’s website outlines that the resident has a responsibility to prevent damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with this information. Furthermore, it may have helped to reduce the mould, and mitigate the impact on the resident, while the repairs were ongoing.
13. In it stage two response, of 19 January 2022, the landlord advised that once the work had been completed, it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the flooring. As such, the landlord had set the resident’s expectations that it would ensure the work was successfully completed.
14. The resident subsequently chased the issue on numerous occasions, as he said he had been advised the contractor that attended on 10 February 2022 that a recommendation had been made for the flooring to be replaced, or a shower tray to be installed as, despite several mould washes, the issue kept recurring. However, the landlord failed to address his concerns until 30 March 2022, when it emailed the resident to apologise for the delay and to say that it would be replacing the flooring. Although the delay was not necessarily excessive, given that the resident had chased the repair on several occasions, the landlord missed the opportunity to manage his expectations at an earlier date. 
15. There were additional delays in the works as a contractor attended on 6 April 2022, but was unable to complete the works. The landlord subsequently advised the resident on 26 April 2022 that it would contact him once it had sourced an appropriate contractor to complete the work. The resident advised the landlord on 4 July 2022 that the floor was no longer non-slip, and said that it was a health and safety concern. The resident emailed this service on 21 August 2022 to say that a surveyor attended on 7 July 2022, that he was told by the surveyor that the flooring needed to be taken up and that they would need to look behind the shower for leaks. The resident also advised that the mould issue was spreading and he had not received any updates from the landlord.
16. Although the landlord took steps within its complaint process to take steps to resolve the issues with the wet room flooring, it has not seen the repair through to completion, so has failed to put things right. It also failed to provide the resident with advice suggested by the contractor to prevent the mould. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. As a result, an additional £200 compensation has been ordered, bringing the total compensation payable by the landlord for the failures identified in this report to £300.
17. As the resident has advised this service that the works are still outstanding, an additional order has also been made for the landlord to address the recommendations made in its surveyor on 7 July 2022, referred to in the resident emailed to this service on 21 August 2022. Once it has done so, the landlord is also to consider whether further compensation would be appropriate.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of mould on his wet room flooring.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the failings outlined in this report. This includes the £100 offered in its final response if it has not already paid this to the resident.
20. If it has not done so already, the landlord is also ordered to address the recommendations made by the surveyor on 7 July 2022 and, once it has done so, to consider whether a payment of further compensation to the resident would be appropriate.
21. The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.