Longhurst Group Limited (202200741)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200741

Longhurst Group Limited

03 October 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The resident’s reports about the heating at the property.
    3. The resident’s request for a decant (temporary move).
    4. The resident’s application for a property transfer.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom on 14 July 2021, there is no evidence provided of what, if any, actions the landlord took in response to this report. She then raised a further report on 13 September 2021, and stated that she was no longer staying at the property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 27 September 2021 as she said there were urgent repairs to her boiler and radiator required, as well as damp and mould issues within the property. She said that the issues were impacting her health.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged that the resident had reported mould in the property in July 2021 and the contractor had not attended until 30 September 2021. It said it had extended its repair timeframes due to increased repairs, but nevertheless apologised for the delay. It said the resident had reported the radiator issues on 16 September, a contractor attended on 23 September 2021, and a double radiator was fitted on 2 November 2021. A council officer had also attended on 2 November and found no defects. It advised the resident to arrange an appointment to fit the thermostatic radiator valve (TRV). It stated a mutual exchange would be more feasible than a management move. It offered £10 for a missed appointment, £100 for failing to attend when the issue was initially reported in July, £50 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for the delay in resolving the complaint. It advised it was unable to offer compensation for the damaged items by mould as it would be her responsibility to ensure they were moved from the affected areas.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she did not think the landlord had sufficiently addressed the issue with mould in the property and wanted the landlord to find the source of the problem. She said the issue with the heating was intermittent and it was working on the day the contractor attended, but was still an outstanding issue. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not provided her with temporary accommodation. She wanted compensation of £3500 for damage caused to her belongings. In further correspondence with this Service, the resident stated the issues with the property continue to cause her ill health and that she does not reside at the property for extended periods.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the damp and mould in the property has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and problems with the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. In her initial complaint, the resident stated that she had reported issues with her boiler in February 2020. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. This is because as substantive issues become historical, it becomes more difficult for landlords, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to make decisions on whether appropriate actions were taken. As such, this report will focus on events following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 14 July 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy refers residents to a leaflet on mould and condensation which provides advice on how to prevent and remove mould in the property. While it is appropriate to advise residents on their role in avoiding damp and mould, the landlord also has a responsibility to take action if there is a structural cause. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. As a result, when the resident reported issues with damp and mould, the landlord was responsible for investigating the issue and completing any required repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states its “target is to complete all appointed general repairs within 21 calendar days and 10 calendar days”.
  2. In this case, the landlord did not initially adhere to its repair obligations as on 14 July 2021, the resident reported that there was damp in the bedroom and there is no evidence of the landlord having taken any action until her further reports in September 2021. The landlord acknowledged in its response to the complaint that it failed to respond to the resident’s initial report and its final offer of compensation included an amount to reflect this failure.
  3. At Following the resident’s further reports, the landlord arranged a property inspection (28 September 2021), which checked moisture levels within the property and the exterior for areas where cold and water could get in to the property, with no concerns identified. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s difficulty in keeping the room warm however and also arranged for a mould wash to the bedroom, which took place on 30 September 2021.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the area covered by the mould wash, so the landlord arranged a follow-on appointment for 15 October 2021. An independent survey then took place on 5 November 2021, which found no defects causing the mould issues within the property. The resident was advised however to keep the (new) radiator on at a low temperature for 24 hours a day for a period before moving back into the property.
  5. Overall, despite the initial delay to complete works following the resident’s report of damp and mould in July 2021, the landlord took reasonable steps to identify and address any damp/mould issues. It inspected and acted upon the findings of this inspection. It also arranged for an independent survey, which corroborated the finding that there was no substantial issue with the property, it also carried out a mould wash and acted upon the identified issues relating to the heating at the property (assessed in more detail below).
  6. As offered in its stage one response, the landlord has since completed additional works to have the resident’s bedroom environmentally cleaned, as a gesture of goodwill. It installed a hydroxyl generator (to sanitise surface and remove odours) and treated the floors and walls in the bedroom for mould growth on 10 February 2021. The contractor also provided the resident with a humidity meter so she could monitor the humidity of the property to avoid conditions for damp. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it acknowledged the resident’s health concerns, and took steps to make the property safe.
  7. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, the landlord’s response was initially delayed, causing additional time, effort and distress to the resident. However, the delay was not excessive, so did not cause significant determinantal impact on the resident. Following the initial delay, the landlord arranged appointments in line with its repair obligations and timeframes. The landlord offered £100 compensation for not initially responding when the resident raised the issue in July 2021, £10 for a missed appointment and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it acknowledged its failure to initially respond in line with its repair timeframe and offered an appropriate level of compensation. It has therefore reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.
  8. The resident requested compensation for items damaged by mould. The landlord denied compensation as it explained it was the resident’s responsibility to move the items from the affected area when she initially reported the damp and mould. Whilst this was a reasonable response, it would also have been helpful for the landlord to have signposted the resident to her contents insurance to make a claim.
  9. As the landlord has acknowledged failings to respond to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in line with its repair timeframe, it may also be appropriate for the landlord to consider referring the resident to its liability insurance to assess her claim. It is reasonable for the landlord to have liability insurance to cover claims for any negligence, as a way of managing costs. The landlord would not be expected to consider negligence claims outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer or the outcome of any insurance claim in our investigation as we can only investigate the actions of the landlord. As a result, the landlord would not be expected to award additional compensation for items damaged by damp and mould, unless it is deemed as negligent in its handling of the repairs by its liability insurance.
  10. It is noted that the resident has made recent reports that the property remains significantly affected by mould and damp issues. Whilst this investigation has not identified any substantive issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, it is of concern that the resident still feels sufficiently concerned that she resides elsewhere for periods of time and also sleeps in alternative parts of the property when she is in residence (i.e. not in the bedroom). The resident not residing in the property might exacerbate any existing issues as the property will likely not remain heated or ventilated during this time, thus impacting upon any mould growth issues.
  11. It is also not clear whether the landlord has assessed the issue in relation to the resident’s personal circumstances. It is clear that the issue has caused her considerable distress. She also alluded to not being able to keep her heating on permanently when advised to. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the landlord discuss her ongoing concerns with her, clarify why it has not reached a conclusion that there are any property related (structural or repair) issues that are contributing to the mould growth and confirming what support options might be available for helping her heat and maintain the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with heating

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for completing repairs to installations for heating. As there is no evidence to suggest the resident reported a complete loss of heating, the repair would not be considered an emergency. The repairs policy states that its “target is to complete all appointed general repairs within 21 calendar days and 10 calendar days for appointed heating repairs”.
  2. On 14 September 2021, the resident reported that she had been advised by a contractor that the single radiator in the bedroom was not sufficient for the size of the room. It is unclear when this recommendation was made, or if the landlord had been previously informed that the work was required. The resident also raised on several occasions that she was unable to regulate the temperature in the bedroom and it was often cold. The landlord initially arranged an appointment to inspect the radiator in line with its repair timeframes as it booked an appointment to inspect the radiator on 23 September 2021 and subsequently installed a double radiator on 2 November 2021. Although, the follow-on appointment slightly exceeded its repair timeframe, this would not necessarily be a failing as it would take additional time to obtain the required parts. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to clearly explain the reasons for any delays to the resident.
  3. Following installation of the radiator, the landlord advised the resident to maintain the temperature of the property between 16 and 17 degrees, to avoid further damp and mould in the property. The contractor subsequently recommended a TRV to be fitted in order to allow the resident to control the temperature of the radiator. An appointment was scheduled for 19 November 2021; however, this was cancelled by the resident. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to rearrange the appointment. As the appointment was cancelled by the resident, the landlord would not be held accountable for the delay, as the resident is responsible for providing access to the property.
  4. In a further inspection on 13 January 2022, the contractor identified that the radiator in the bedroom did not reach the correct temperature, and follow-on works with a heating engineer were recommended. However, in its stage two response on 18 January 2022, the landlord advised the resident the contractor stated the radiators were heating up correctly and no further works were recommended, which is a clear contradiction of the contractor’s advice. It is unclear whether the landlord had received the findings of the report prior to issuing its complaint response as it had referenced a contractor’s report made during May 2021 (which we have not been provided with). This would not necessarily be a communication failing by the landlord; however, it is unclear whether the resident was advised of the updated findings, to appropriately manage her expectations of the works following the completion of the complaint procedure.
  5. The landlord subsequently appears to have acted on the recommendations made by the contractor. On 9 February 2022, a contractor attended and recommended an additional radiator in the bedroom, which was installed on 16 February 2022. An appointment was attended for a “power flush” on 9 March 2022 and the contractor advised the landlord on 15 June 2022 that he had vented the radiators and confirmed they were left heating properly. The contractor said no additional reports had been made by the resident since the appointment. The landlord should write to this Service and confirm whether it has complied with the recommendations made following the inspection on 13 January 2022 and if not, it should provide a clear action plan, including the intended schedule of works.
  6. Overall, the landlord initially responded promptly to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and completed the necessary inspections and subsequent repairs. Although the issue was ongoing for an extended period of time, it is important to note that the landlord has taken steps to resolve the issue, in line with its contractor’s recommendations. It can take several attempts in order to resolve such issues, particularly as the resident has stated the issue was intermittent, which means that several appointments and repairs can be required in order to identify and resolve the underlying issue. As a result, there was no evidence of service failure with the landlord’s handling of the issue.

The resident’s request for a decant

  1. The resident raised on 14 September 2021 that she wanted to be decanted (temporarily moved) from the property due to the damp and mould as it was impacting her health and she subsequently pursued the request on several occasions. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord addressed her concerns, other than when it advised her to apply for a mutual exchange in its stage one response, which indicates that it had not properly considered her request. The landlord was also aware that the resident had been staying at her friend’s property, due to the impact of the damp and mould on her health.
  2. The landlord does not have a specific decant policy; however, its tenancy management policy states that “customers may require temporary housing so that essential major work can be carried out to their home or works that are required as a result of unforeseen damage by flood, fire, or other incidents”. Given that the resident had requested to be moved on several occasions, the landlord should have addressed her concerns, provided a clear decision on whether it would temporarily decant her, and provided any relevant reasons for its decisions. As it failed to do so, it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take. It is of particular concern that the resident’s request to be decanted was not addressed while work to replace the radiator were outstanding, as the resident had explained that the cold temperatures impacted her health conditions. It is recommended that the landlord considers developing a clear procedure for assessing temporary decant requests, which has clear guidelines for residents that have health issues impacted by issues within the property.
  3. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, the landlord has failed to properly address the resident’s request for a decant; this caused her additional distress and time and effort in pursuing the request. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation to address this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s request to secure a permanent transfer from the property

  1. Though not raised as part of the initial complaint, it was clear that the resident confirmed that she wanted to be re-housed permanently as part of her further discussions with the landlord prior to it sending its stage one complaint response. The stage one complaint response (8 December 2021) confirmed that it  had discussed the resident’s request for a management transfer with her on 25 November 2021 and had advised her that a mutual exchange would be more feasible as she did not meet the criteria for a transfer. It also advised her that medical evidence might help if she wanted to pursue a transfer application.
  2. The landlord demonstrated that it had clarified its position regarding a management transfer and explained what she might be able to do to improve her chances of securing a move. In practice, tenants will need to fulfil stringent criteria in order to secure a management transfer and, even where such criteria are met, it remains that the landlord will need to have an available [property that meets household needs. In the circumstances, advising the resident about the possibility of a mutual exchange and informing her how she might improve her chances of securing a move presents as a reasonable response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of issues with heating.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s request for a decant.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. In light of its failure to address the resident’s request for a decant, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation. The landlord should provide proof of this payment to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to confirm to this Service (and the resident) that it has complied with the recommendations made following the inspection on 13 January 2022 and if not, it should provide a clear action plan, including the intended schedule of works.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £195 as previously offered through its complaints process, unless it has already done so.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers referring the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings to its liability insurance provider.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord review this case and consider whether to put in place specific guidance as to how it will assess requests for temporary decants in future.
  5. The landlord to contact the resident and clarify why it does not understand there to be an issue with the structure of the building that is contributing to any ongoing mould growth in the property. This discussion to include signposting to any available support options that might assist the resident in heating and maintaining the property.