Oak Housing Limited (202401821)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and a leak to the landlord. He said that this had damaged his belongings and affected the condition of his home. He was unhappy with the landlord’s attempts to resolve this and that the issue returned. As a resolution, he asked the landlord to move him due to the size of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated leak
   2. the resident’s reports of damages to personal belongings
   3. the resident’s request to move
   4. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that the landlord is responsible for:
   1. service failure in its handling of the reports of damp and mould and the associated leak
   2. reasonable redress in its handling of the reports of damaged to personal belongings
   3. no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request to move
   4. no maladministration in its associated complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated leak

4. The landlord recognised earlier failings and paid compensation for those. However, it delayed in making a decision to install the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damages to personal belongings

5. The landlord responded to and offered redress which we consider proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move

6. The landlord gave clear and accurate advice about rehousing responsibility, explained its limited role, and signposted the resident to appropriate support services.

The associated complaint

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us that damp and mould affected his mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident had previously reported issues of damp, mould, and leaks in 2022. We looked at these reports for context. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of us.

What we have investigated

10. The resident reported damp and mould in March 2022. The landlord inspected and carried out repairs. It also offered temporary accommodation during the works.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergencies within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It will complete urgent repairs, such as damp and mould, within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days. It will inspect within 7 days where needed. Its damp and mould policy requires it to act quickly, find the cause, and complete the right repairs.
12. On 10 October 2023 the resident reported a roof leak. The landlord attended 6 days later. It began work but could not finish as it needed scaffolding. On 27 October 2023 the resident reported water entering the property, affecting walls, electrics, and belongings. He raised the same issues and sent photos between 30 October and 6 November 2023.
13. The landlord said it inspected on 9 November 2023, but it has not provided us record of what it found. It carried out another inspection on 20 November 2023, over a month after the first report. This was not within its 7-day target. It did not complete mould treatment until 23 November 2023, about 4 weeks later. This was not in line with its 5-day target for urgent repairs. It completed further treatment on 27 November 2023 and provided a dehumidifier on 28 November 2023.
14. The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation on 27 November 2023. The resident asked for the move due to ongoing water ingress. The landlord agreed, which reduced the impact on the resident. It also provided the schedule of works to the resident with a time frame of when it expected to complete the works.
15. The landlord completed roof repairs and other remedial repairs in the property in January 2024, about 3 months after the first report. It said scaffolding and the weather contributed to the delay.
16. The landlord said the resident could return on 29 January 2024. In February 2024, the resident reported more mould. The landlord carried out mould treatments. Since this was a reoccurrence, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to check the cause and take steps to fix it. There is no evidence it did this at that time.
17. On 5 March 2024 the resident reported mould again after rain. The landlord inspected in March 2024 and carried out more mould treatments. On 27 March 2024 the landlord noted that better ventilation could help reduce damp and mould.
18. On 28 March 2024 the landlord carried out more work. The same day, the resident said water was still getting in and mould remained. A damp specialist attended on 4 April 2024. It found ongoing water entry and high moisture levels. It said this would likely cause more mould. It advised installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit and carrying out further treatment.
19. The landlord credited the resident’s electricity meter to cover the cost of running the dehumidifier during specified periods. This was reasonable.
20. In its response on 11 April 2024, the landlord referred to the April 2024 inspection but did not set out the recommendations or explain what it would do next. It is not clear that it considered these at the time. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain to the resident, why it had not considered the recommendations and the need for a further inspection.
21. The landlord said it would arrange a survey for 15 April 2024. The resident was not available until 29 April 2024. However, the survey did not take place until 11 June 2024. There were some missed appointments which it addressed in a separate complaint.
22. The June 2024 survey again found that the home needed better ventilation and less moisture. This was the same as the earlier findings.
23. We have not assessed any delay in the installation of the PIV unit, as the landlord responded to this in a separate complaint not part of this investigation. However, it is not clear why the landlord required the additional survey in June 2024. It was aware of the advice to install a PIV unit in March 2024 but did not explain at the time why it choose not to consider this recommendation. This caused unnecessary delays in the landlord reaching a decision.
24. The resident asked for rent refund. The landlord explained why it could not and offered compensation for distress and inconveniences.
25. Our guidance requires clear evidence that maladministration led to loss of use of rooms. This would usually include independent professional evidence, such as a surveyor or environmental health report. In this case, there is no such evidence. While the resident’s reports and photographs show the presence of damp and mould, they do not demonstrate that the property was uninhabitable. For this reason, we have not awarded compensation for loss of use.
26. There were failings in the landlord’s handling. It delayed inspections and repairs and did not act quickly on long‑term solutions. However, it did take steps to respond. It attended, carried out checks and treatments, moved the resident to temporary accommodation, and paid some costs. This shows it recognised the issue and tried to put things right.
27. We understand that damp and mould can have a significant impact on a resident’s living conditions, and that repeated issues can cause distress and inconvenience, especially where there is no clear or lasting solution.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response showed it reviewed the repair issues. It said sorry, recognised the impact on the resident, and offered £400. This was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance. However, it delayed making a decision to install the PIV unit. We have therefore ordered an additional £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience during this time.

29. On 27 November 2023 the resident reported damage to belongings and suggested a payment of about £120. The landlord apologised and offered £100, which the resident accepted and the landlord processed at the time. This was reasonable.
30. The landlord also advised the resident to claim through home contents insurance. This was in line with its policy, although such insurance may not cover damage from damp.
31. In March 2024 the resident informed the landlord that his bed and mattress had mould on them and in April 2024 he provided evidence of costs incurred in replacing a bed, submitting a receipt totalling £601.98.
32. The landlord later offered £600 as a goodwill payment towards the losses, based on the information it had. This was reasonable.
33. While the resident may feel disappointed, he only said the losses exceeded £1,000 after the complaint procedure had ended and did not provide supporting evidence at the time. We are therefore satisfied that the offer was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

34. As part of the complaint, the resident said the property was unsuitable and did not provide enough space for the children.
35. The landlord does not have a transfer policy, it explained that responsibility for rehousing rested with the local authority, which also held nomination rights. While we cannot assess rehousing duties, we considered the landlord’s response to these concerns.
36. In its stage 1 response in November 2023, the landlord said the local authority was responsible for rehousing and that it could not provide alternative housing. It advised the resident to bid for properties and explained how to pursue rehousing through the local authority. It also signposted the resident to Citizens Advice and Mind for legal, housing, and wellbeing support. The landlord also repeated same advise in its stage 2 response.
37. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide information about these options.

38. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition.
39. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 24 hours. It aims to investigate and give a full response within 10 working days, or within 28 days for more complex cases.
40. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 November 2023 and issued its stage 1 response, 5 working days after the acknowledgement.
41. The acknowledgement was 1 working day late. However, the landlord took 7 working days in total to issue its stage 1 response. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
42. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it the next working day. It issued its stage 2 response 12 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
43. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2024 to report that damp and mould had returned and that further damage had occurred after the January 2024 stage 2 response. While the landlord’s intention to revisit the complaint and consider additional redress is understood, issuing a second stage 2 response departed from its procedure. The landlord did not explain why the complaint was reopened or whether this approach would be applied consistently. However, we do not consider that this approach caused any detriment to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. In this case, it was not always clear how information from inspections and specialist recommendations was used to inform next steps. Consideration could be given to ensuring that key findings are clearly recorded, tracked, and progressed, so that underlying issues are addressed in a timely and coordinated way.

Communication

45. In this case, the landlord did not always provide clear updates to the resident or explain how it intended to act on inspection findings and recommendations.
46. While its intention was to complete works within a short timeframe, the landlord did not manage expectations when delays occurred and did not provide clear updates or revised timescales.