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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202233224)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233224

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. On 18 November 2021 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. She informed the landlord that this was affecting her asthma. The landlord completed a damp and mould wash to the living room walls on 25 April 2022. On 25 November 2022 the resident was informed by the landlord that damp and mould she had reported in her bathroom was normal and was not a repair. This appeared to be a response to a further report of damp and mould by the resident, although the Ombudsman has not seen this correspondence.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 28 November 2022. She advised the landlord that she was almost 7 months pregnant. She stated she had tried to do her own cosmetic repairs, but felt the damp and mould needed properly treating, to ensure the home was clean. She also stated that a member of staff had refused to listen to her concerns when she reported the mould.
  4. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 9 December 2022. It identified some damage from a previous leak. It also identified mould in several places in the home. The report confirmed what work was required to remedy the mould. This included damp and mould washes, replacing the silicone in the bathroom, and replastering one of the walls in the hallway. The report identified the causes as a lack of heating and ventilation and possible penetration from rainwater on an external wall.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 January 2023. It advised that an appointment for replastering was attended by its contractor on 3 January 2023, but it discovered that the job was more extensive than first thought. This was due to damaged skirting boards needing replacement. The skirting boards were replaced on 16 January 2023 and the landlord stated it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the replastering. It also acknowledged a failed inspection on 7 December 2022 which was due to an admin error. The landlord offered £40 for service failure, £30 for time and trouble, and £20 for poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 25 January 2023. The resident advised that she felt the stage 1 did not fully address her complaint. She noted an appointment had been made, without checking her availability. She had previously advised that due to her circumstances, she needed to agree appointments with the landlord. She stated that the stage 1 did not address that a staff member refused to address her concerns. She also sent pictures which showed where some mould washes had been completed, but mould remained. The resident stated that the £90 offered at stage 1 did not cover the materials she had bought herself to address the damp and mould, or the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 March 2023. It advised it had not been able to complete appointments on 6 and 9 March 2023, due to no access. It stated that all appointments had now been rescheduled. The landlord offered an extra £30 for time and trouble and £15 for poor complaint handling.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the response. She advised the compensation was too low, given the money she had spent and the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused. She also stated that the landlord did not address her concerns with staff behaviour. The resident has advised that the mould has now been treated, however she has been informed this might be a recurring issue in the future. She is concerned for her and her child’s health.
  9. The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman after an evidence request was made to it. It advised it had made several changes to its policies and procedures since the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021. It also felt the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response was too low. It offered £350 for time and trouble, £350 for failure of service, £10 for a missed appointment and £150 for complaint handling. It also offered to reimburse costs the resident had paid in treating the mould, up to the value of £300. It is unclear if the resident is aware of this offer at this time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is dated April 2022 and it is unclear what processes it had in place at the time of the resident’s first report in November 2021. However, mould is considered a risk under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and it is known that it might affect the severity of conditions such as asthma. As such the landlord should have ensured it considered the risk to the resident and took action to address the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in 2021.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen a repair note in the landlord’s records from 21 April 2022 stating that a damp and mould wash was completed on the same day. It is unclear what part of the property the mould wash was completed on, or how the matter was brought to the landlord’s attention. Although it was positive that the landlord took action to address the mould, it should ensure it keeps its records up to date so it can monitor mould for any reoccurrence. This allows the landlord to investigate and tackle any underlying issues.
  3. The resident advised she reported mould again in November 2022. At the time, the landlord had a damp and mould policy in place. The policy stated that when mould was reported, the landlord should have opened an investigation. The landlord responded to the resident on 25 November 2022 stating that there was nothing to repair, and that mould in the bathroom was normal. It advised the resident how to clean it. The landlord did not follow its own damp and mould policy. In addition, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report had been issued in October 2021. The report had made recommendations for a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and that landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. This was particularly important given that the landlord was aware of previous incidents of damp and mould in the property, and that the resident had asthma, a known risk factor.
  4. The resident subsequently raised a complaint. She advised she was nearly 7 months pregnant. Although she had been attempting to deal with the mould issue, through cleaning and redecoration, she felt she could no longer control the issue. The landlord scheduled a damp and mould inspection for 7 December 2022. It did not attend the appointment but offered £10 for the missed appointment in its complaint responses. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for missed appointments.
  5. The landlord attended the damp and mould inspection on 9 December 2022. It found that there was damage to the hallway wall and skirting from a previous leak. It also noted moderate mould on the balcony door in the living room and stains on the ceiling. It identified mould around the bathroom seal. It made recommendations on how to resolve the issues and noted factors which may be causing the mould. This was noted as a lack of ventilation and heating, and possible external brickwork allowing penetration of rainwater. The landlord advised the resident to keep the trickle vents open to improve ventilation. The landlord took the correct action in conducting a survey and identifying the damp and mould. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord investigated the external wall, which may have been contributing to the damp and mould. Dealing with underlying causes is essential in preventing mould reoccurrence.
  6. The landlord completed a mould wash in the bathroom and replaced the silicone on 3 January 2023. The landlord also attended on this day to look at hacking the plastering and treating mould, as per the recommendations in the inspection report. On 12 January 2023 the landlord had communications with the resident regarding the plastering. It stated that the work notes indicated that plastering was not required. The resident responded that the operative had advised the resident at the time that they could not do the plastering works as the work was more extensive than first thought. This was due to damage to the skirting boards which needed replacing. The landlord’s repairs notes should have been clear enough to understand what works were needed, without having to consult the resident for clarity.
  7. The landlord completed the skirting repairs on 16 January 2023. The landlord had also asked for a further inspection to be completed to address any outstanding or incomplete works identified in the resident’s escalation email. The landlord stated that it attended on 6 March 2023, but it was unable to get access. The resident had raised in her escalation email that this appointment may not be suitable, as she may be in hospital or recently discharged following the birth of her child. The landlord should have been engaging with the resident to ensure she was able to attend the appointment. The records show that the resident was sent an email on 8 February 2023 confirming the appointment of 6 March 2023. The Ombudsman appreciates that there were circumstances which meant the resident may have not been able to engage with the landlord at that time, however it also recognises that the landlord did try to inform the resident of the appointment. A second appointment was missed on 9 March 2023, and this was for the same reasons as above.
  8. The landlord completed further works on 18 April 2023 and 25 May 2023. A post works inspection was completed on 8 November 2023, confirming that all works were satisfactory. There was a delay in completing the works, although the Ombudsman recognises that there were some access issues. It was positive that the landlord completed a post works inspection.
  9. The landlord has not demonstrated that it fully investigated all underlying causes such as the possible rainwater penetration from the external wall. It also failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability. When the mould was initially reported, the landlord did not respond. When the mould was reported a second time, the landlord suggested this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord subsequently completed the mould works and it has stated that it has since taken action to improve its handling of damp and mould cases.
  10. The landlord offered £135 in compensation at stage 2. The landlord increased this offer to £710 after the complaint had come to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman considers the increased offer to be a reasonable amount of redress. However, as this was offered after the complaints process was completed, and the landlord has not evidenced that is has fully investigated the cause of the damp, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 39 working days. This was out with the timeframe stated in the landlord’s policy.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord took 39 working days. This was out with the timeframes stated in the landlord’s policy.
  3. The landlord offered a total of £35 for delays to the complaint responses.
  4. After the complaint came to the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to address the resident’s concerns that a staff member had not acted when the resident reported damp and mould. The landlord issued a further apology on 30 January 2024 and apologised for the poor service received from its repairs service. The landlord also contacted the Housing Ombudsman to increase its offer of compensation for complaints handling to £150.
  5. Although the landlord has addressed the complaint handling failures fully, this was partially completed after the landlord’s complaints process. We encourage landlords to keep working with residents to resolve complaints, even after the matter has gone to the Ombudsman. However, to ensure transparency and consistency, the Ombudsman does not encourage landlords to revisit compensation on the basis that they have gone to the Ombudsman. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £860 compensation to the resident within 4 weeks of this report. The landlord may deduct any compensation it has paid to date for this matter. The amount is made up of:
    1. £350 for time and trouble
    2. £350 for failure of service
    3. £10 for a missed appointment
    4. £150 for complaints handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered to complete a further inspection of the property to identify any root causes of damp and mould. This should include the external wall, identified as having possible rainwater penetration. This should be completed within 6 weeks of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the timescales noted above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord honour its offer to the resident to reimburse any costs of cleaning or decorating materials which the resident bought to tackle the mould herself. This is up to the value of £300.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord work with the resident to find a long-term solution for the resident, so that she does not have to live with reoccurring mould. In doing this, the landlord should consider the resident’s vulnerability.