Midland Heart Limited (202400462)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400462

Midland Heart Limited

16 January 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from 2021 until October 2024 when she started a new tenancy with a local authority. The resident has 3 young children, one of which was newly born in 2023.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould throughout the property on 30 November 2023. On 2 January 2024 the landlord attended and completed a mould wash. On the same day the resident reported concerns about draughty windows. The landlord visited to inspect the windows the following day and raised works to replace them in May.
  3. On 1 February 2024 a surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection and identified mould throughout the property. It also identified some issues which it considered were likely contributing to this. To address the damp and mould it recommended an anti-bacterial treatment and some repairs.
  4. On 16 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that there was still extensive mould in the property. She complained it had damaged her and her children’s health, and that it had contaminated much of the furniture. She asked the landlord to resolve the issues and replace her damaged possessions, or, to relocate her. The landlord raised non-specified damp and mould works on the same day.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024. It provided a timeline of actions it had taken to address her 30 November 2023 report. It recognised that damp and mould appeared to have returned and said it had booked an inspection for 1 March 2024. It also asked for a costed list of the items the resident wanted reimbursement for, and explained how she could make an insurance claim to address the physical harm she alleged had been caused to her and her children.
  6. On 13 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she had not heard back about any outstanding repairs following an inspection on 1 March 2024. She contacted it again to chase this on 22 March 2024. On 25 March 2024 the landlord attended and treated mould throughout the property. Over the next few weeks the resident and landlord communicated about works which the resident claimed had not been completed.
  7. The landlord inspected the property again on 8 April 2024 and confirmed there were outstanding works. Its contractor attended on 6 and 10 April 2024 and carried out works on the loft insulation and extractor fans. The resident complained on 16 April 2024 that the fans had been poorly installed, and that the contractors had left rubbish in the road on 10 April 2024. She asked the landlord to inspect the fans and assess the quality of the loft insulation repair. She also noted that the “window vent installation” was outstanding.
  8. On 18 April 2024 the landlord attended and completed installing the extractor fans. On 24 April 2024 the landlord raised another mould treatment following a visit to the property, and completed this on 1 May 2024. It carried out a post inspection the day after and noted all damp and mould related works were complete.
  9. On 3 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It summarised its actions in addressing the damp and mould up to this point. However, it acknowledged that its contractors had not carried out some of the works to a suitable standard in April 2024 which it then had to reattend to finish. It recognised that a number of appointments had been missed. It also recognised that the damp and mould had damaged some of her belongings. It apologised for this and offered her £1000 to contribute towards replacing these belongings, and £750 for delays in resolving the damp and mould. It also offered to provide 3 new beds for the property.
  10. The resident was not satisfied with this as she considered there was still damp in her bedroom, and that the compensation offered was not high enough. The resident then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 May 2024. To resolve things, she would like the landlord to provide a greater level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about how the landlord handled her reports of damp since 2021. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This is typically within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 16 February 2024, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 16 February 2023 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.
  2. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions from 16 February 2023 up to its final response on 3 May 2024. We will also consider its actions after this response insofar as they relate to commitments made as part of its complaints process.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will carry out anti-bacterial treatment on reported mould within 14 days of this. It states it will carry out any repairs required within 28 days of this. If there are no signs of structural causes, and heating and ventilation are adequate, the landlord will address this at “stage 1” by giving advice on how to prevent a recurrence.
  2. It explains that, if the mould is serious in nature, it will escalate its response to “stage 2”. It will also do so in cases where damp and mould is reported in the same area within an 18-month period. For stage 2 cases, the policy obliges the landlord to complete a damp and mould survey within 7 days of the date it was escalated, and repairs within 90 days of this.
  3. Our Spotlight report recommends that landlords take a “zero-tolerance” approach to damp and mould interventions. This means we expect landlords to take a proactive approach to resolving damp and mould by making efforts to address any issues as early as possible.
  4. The resident first reported damp and mould on 30 November 2023. We can see the landlord logged this as a stage 1 report on the same day. It carried out a mould treatment on 2 January 2024, which was 19 days later than the timescales set out in its policy. While we recognise it may not always be possible to meet its repairs timescales, the landlord should have at least updated the resident during this period. We accept that this failure likely caused the resident some distress.
  5. On 3 January 2024 the landlord attended to inspect the windows following the resident’s reports that they were draughty and causing damp. Its fire team assessed that they were “not [fire] safe” and in need of replacing. The landlord then scheduled this for May 2024. Its repairs policy does not provide specific timescales for major planned improvement and maintenance works like this. However, given the scale of this type of job and resources required, we consider that May 2024 was a reasonable deadline by which to complete this.
  6. The landlord then completed a damp and mould survey on 1 February 2024. It identified mould on the ceilings, windows, and walls of both bedrooms and the bathroom. It found that furniture in both bedrooms was contaminated with mould. It also found that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and window vents in the living room, were faulty. Photos taken at this inspection indicate significant mould growth throughout the property. The surveyor rated the condition of the property as “average”. It recommended the following works to resolve the damp and mould:
    1. Replace extractor fans
    2. Tidy loft insulation.
    3. Clean mould on ceilings, windows, and walls in both bedrooms and bathroom.
    4. Consider a new “core hole” in upgrade of kitchen fan.
  7. While this survey and the raising of these works was a positive step towards resolving the issue, we note that the landlord identified these repairs 63 days after the resident’s 30 November 2023 report. Given its policy obligated it to complete any repairs within 28 days of this report, it is disappointing that it took this long to inspect the property, and we consider this delay likely caused the resident distress. The mould growth photographed at the inspection is also significant and spread throughout most rooms. Therefore, we consider this likely compounded any distress caused by the delay.
  8. On 16 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the outstanding works. She advised that her new born baby had bronchitis and she was concerned about the impact of the mould on their health. She also advised that several items of furniture were contaminated and needed to be replaced. Notably, she advised that her children were unable to sleep in their beds due to this. She asked the landlord to expediate these works and install external wall insulation, or to move her to a different property.
  9. The landlord raised non-specified works on the same day via a stage 2 damp response. We can assume that these works were those recommended by the surveyor. Based on the significant mould detailed in the photos taken at the 2 February 2024 inspection, the landlord acted appropriately by escalating its response to stage 2 and raising works to address it.
  10. However, it is unclear why it took 2 weeks to do so. It appears to have decided to do so in reaction to the resident’s contact on 16 February 2024. It should have done so proactively and promptly following the inspection, and its failure to do so was not in keeping with the approach recommended in our Spotlight report. We also consider this likely further delayed a resolution and compounded the resident’s distress.
  11. In its stage 1 response on 1 March 2024 the landlord advised that it would not provide external wall insulation as per the resident’s request. This would be classed as an improvement, and therefore the landlord was under no obligation to provide this. It recognised the damp and mould had “returned”, and explained it had booked another inspection for 1 March 2024. There is no record of this inspection, so we are unable to reach a view on what the landlord observed here. It should have kept a clear audit trail of all the action it took in addressing this issue.
  12. On 13 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that, following its inspection on 1 March 2024, she had not been contacted regarding any follow up repairs. It appears the landlord then allocated non-specified works to a contractor on 14 March 2024. It is disappointing that the landlord repeatedly failed to keep a detailed audit trail on which specific works it was raising.
  13. It is also unclear why it delayed in raising these works by almost 2 weeks. This was not in keeping with the proactive approach recommended by our Spotlight Report, and likely caused the resident further distress. Due to the lack of detail in the works orders, it is also unclear whether these works were distinct to those it had already raised on 16 February 2024 following the first inspection. We consider it more likely that this was a duplicate request, and that this mistake was likely caused by the lack of specific detail. Therefore, we consider that poor record keeping likely played a role in the delays.
  14. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 25 March 2024 and completed a mould wash. Photos taken following these works indicate that the mould was successfully cleaned and painted over. Its policy obliged it to do so 14 days after the 1 February 2024 inspection found extensive mould, and so it exceeded this timescale by 37 days. This likely compounded the resident’s distress. At this visit the contractors also advised the resident that they would reattend on 30 March 2024 to repair the loft insulation.
  15. The contractors did not attend the 30 March 2024 appointment. This was disappointing and likely frustrating given the previous delays. The resident emailed and called the landlord about this, and the outstanding works, on 3,4 and 5 April 2024. It is not acceptable that she was forced to chase this and it likely compounded her distress. However, on 5 April 2024 the landlord apologised for this and advised its contractors would visit on 6 April 2024 to complete the outstanding works. It advised that, if they would not replace the fans, the landlord would attend to do so. This was a positive means of mitigating the impact of the missed appointment.
  16. The contractors reattended on 6 April 2024 and repaired the seals of the windows. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 April 2024 that she had been expecting them to fit new fans and repair the loft insulation. The landlord attended on 10 April 2024 and repaired the loft insulation. This was 61 days after the repairs were recommended by the surveyor on 1 February 2024. These repairs were raised under stage 2 of the landlord’s damp and mould policy, and so they were appropriately completed within its 90 day timescale.
  17. On 12 April 2024 the landlord attended and replaced the fans but left holes above them in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident contacted it the same day to complain about this and advise that all of the beds were mouldy inside the property. Given this was identified in the 1 February 2024 inspection, it is disappointing that the landlord had not yet made any attempts to replace these beds or give any indication as to when it would. We consider this likely caused the resident further distress.
  18. On 18 April 2024 the landlord attended to complete the installation of the fans and fill in the holes left above each of them. This job was raised as a stage 2 damp and mould response following the 1 February 2024 inspection. Therefore, if we treat 1 February 2024 as the date the landlord was made aware, this job was completed 17 days within its timescales. On 23 April 2024 the landlord returned to the property and carried out a post-inspection. It identified some persisting mould and raised a anti-bacterial treatment. It completed this treatment on 1 May 2024, which was within the 14 day timescale in its policy.
  19. The landlord then contacted the resident on 1 May 2024 and 2 May 2024 about potential beds to replace those at the property. While this was a positive step, we consider the landlord could have considered providing these sooner than it did, especially given the extend of the mould identified on 1 February 2024 on  furniture throughout the property.
  20. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that the landlord replaced the windows at some stage in early May 2024. We consider these works were most reasonably classed as major planned works. Therefore, we consider that these were completed within a reasonable timeframe as per the landlord’s repairs policy from when they were first raised in January 2024.
  21. In its stage 2 response of 3 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged there had been delays and “poor workmanship” on the repairs completed on 6 April 2024. To put this right, offered the resident £750 in compensation, and £1000 as contribution towards her belongings which were damaged by damp and mould.
  22. We consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in inspecting the property, completing mould treatments, and raising associated works between 30 November 2023 and 25 March 2024. We note that it missed appointments, and the resident was repeatedly forced to chase the completion of works from 25 March 2024. We recognise that the resident’s distress was likely greater than it would have been for other people given the vulnerability of her baby. However, we also note that the landlord met its repairs timescales for the works recommended by the 1 February 2024 inspection. We also note that the landlord has acknowledged these omissions and apologised for them.
  23. The Ombudsman’s guidance on compensation payments sets out that payments between £600 and £1000 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident. Based on this, and the considerations above, we consider the £750 already offered by the landlord is sufficient to put right its failings up until 3 May 2024.
  24. We note that the resident considers the landlord should have paid her more as reimbursement for her damaged possessions, and that she would like us to order it do so. However, the Ombudsman does not make these types of financial awards. The most suitable route to pursue this is through a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. We can see the landlord offered the resident the opportunity to do so, but she did not take it up on this. To resolve this aspect of her complaint, we will recommend the landlord re-offers to facilitate a claim for damages via its liability insurer.
  25. We also note that the resident complains that the works the landlord completed in 2024 failed to fully resolve the damp affecting her bedroom ceiling. We can see she raised this with the landlord on 6 June 2024 and provided a photo of the spot she thought was still damp.
  26. We can see the landlord attempted to visit the property on 10 June 2024 but was not given access. It then rebooked the visit and attended on 16 July 2024. We can see it then raised works to cut out the affected area of plasterboard and reskim it on 19 July 2024. However, internal records note that in August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to postpone this repair until she had moved out.
  27. The landlord attempted to inspect the issue within a reasonable time after the resident first reported it. We can also see that it raised works to address the issue within 3 days of when it was given access to inspect it on 16 July 2024. It also booked these works for August 2024 as a stage 2 response. Therefore, they were booked well within the 90 day timescale for stage 2 repairs. For these reasons, we consider the landlord addressed the resident’s 6 June 2024 report appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re-offer to facilitate a claim on its liability insurance so the resident can make a claim for any damaged possessions which she considers the landlord is responsible for.