Ocean Housing Limited (202339274)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom property. They lived with their husband and 3 young children. They have said their family members have respiratory health conditions. They had told the landlord there was damp and mould throughout their property. They had reported behaviour by their neighbours which they said was harassment. They had also told the landlord that its staff members behaviour had, on occasions, been inappropriate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. How the landlord handled reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. How the landlord handled reports of ASB by the resident’s neighbours.
   3. How the landlord handled reports about the conduct of its staff.
   4. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the damp and mould.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of staff conduct reports.
   4. The was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of damp and mould

4. To resolve the resident’s complaint the landlord offered them a permanent move to a different property. It carried out mould treatments to make things better whilst it tried to find a suitable property to move the family to. It accepted it failed to carry out repair works for damp and mould in line with its policies. It offered £500 compensation to recognise the impact of its failures. We have found that the landlord’s offer was a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.

The handling of ASB

5. The landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. It provided clear explanations about why it was not taking any action. It worked with appropriate third-party organisations to ensure that the resident’s concerns were fully considered.

The handling of staff conduct

6. The evidence shows the landlord considered all the matters raised by the resident. It provided clear explanations about why the staff member’s behaviour was not inappropriate. It still considered the resident’s concerns and provided a response where staff members had left its employment and it could take no further action.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policies and procedures and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

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 did not investigate

8. The resident told us the damp and mould in the property had injured them and their family. 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.

What we did investigate

9. The evidence shows the landlord had been aware of damp and mould issues in the property since at least November 2022. The landlord’s records indicate it inspected the resident’s property on, or around, 22 November 2022. We have not been provided with any records of an inspection. As such, we cannot determine the extent of the inspection or what it found.
10. In January 2023 the landlord repaired the resident’s kitchen extractor fan and serviced the whole home ventilation system. It also adjusted the resident’s front and back doors to stop water getting in. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it raised these jobs. It is therefore not possible for us to determine if it met its repair policy timescales.
11. The landlord (via a contractor) carried out an inspection of the property on 15 February 2023. The contractor gave the landlord its findings on 16 February 2023. The contractor confirmed there was mould present in the property. It believed this was indicative of condensation in the property due to insufficient heat and ventilation. It said the resident should be encouraged to always use the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It did not recommend any remedial plastering works and said the mould should be cleaned with a suitable mould remover.
12. The contractor additionally reported the resident had made it aware of an issue with the concrete floor in the kitchen. It had measured high damp levels in the skirting board. There was mould growth on the underside of the floor covering. It recommended a core sample of the floor was taken.
13. During February 2023 to April 2023 the landlord carried out further works in the resident’s property:
    1. It replaced the kitchen extractor fan with a more powerful model. This took 2 visits and was not completed within the 20 working day timescale set out in its repair policy.
    2. It repaired the bathroom extractor fan. This was competed within its repair timescales.
    3. It attended to paper the external walls in the bedrooms with thermal lining paper. The work order notes this was not completed and further follow-on works were required. The landlord has not provided any evidence this took place.
14. In June 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a core sample of the resident’s floor. It recommended the landlord removed the floor coverings and applied a paint-on damp proof membrane. It said best practice would be to treat the entire ground floor. The landlord asked the contractor to provide a quote for the works. There is no evidence the landlord received this quote or followed up with the contractor.
15. On 26 July 2023 the resident reported mould in their bedrooms and bathroom. They said these areas had been treated in March 2023 but the mould was returning. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to this report.
16. The resident made a further report of mould on 4 October 2023. They said the mould had appeared while they were on holiday. The evidence shows the landlord identified it needed to carry out urgent mould treatments as there was a baby in the property. It instructed an inspection was carried out but this should not delay the mould treatment. The landlord’s repair policy indicates it would carry out urgent works within 5 working days.
17. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 6 October 2023. It confirmed there was mould throughout the property. It took readings with a damp meter which did not indicate the walls were damp. It believed the mould was a result of condensation. It identified several remedial works:
    1. Mould treatments to affected areas.
    2. Fitting ventilation grilles to kitchen units and bedroom cupboards.
    3. Treating the kitchen floor with resin.
    4. Installing thermal lining paper on external walls.
18. There is no clear evidence the resident was made aware of the findings of the inspection. There is also no evidence the landlord tried to carry out any mould treatments within its urgent timescale.
19. Having identified it would be necessary to move the resident out of the property while remedial works took place, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer a permanent, rather than temporary, move. This demonstrated it was considering the resident’s circumstances and looking to provide a resolution that minimised disruption to the resident and their family.
20. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of a permanent move on 17 November 2023.
21. Following the resident agreeing to a permanent move, the landlord put all remedial works other than mould treatments on hold. This was in line with the information it had provided the resident in its stage 1 response.
22. The mould treatments began on 23 April 2024. This was a significant period after its inspection in October 2023. However, there is evidence the landlord was attempting to progress the works during this period. The resident raised concerns about the possible disruption the works would cause as well as whether the treatment would be suitable to use around individuals with respiratory conditions. The evidence shows the landlord met with the resident to agree the least disruptive approach. It also identified a different mould treatment product that it could use.
23. There was also a delay due to the landlord changing contractors in January 2024. This was after the resident expressed concerns about the behaviour of operatives from the contractor it had initially appointed. While the landlord did not agree with the resident that the behaviour had been inappropriate it agreed to find a new contractor. The landlord’s decision to change contractor demonstrates it was mindful of the impact the works would likely have on the resident and was seeking to minimise this.
24. The landlord was responsible for a short delay from 15 April 2024 to 23 April 2024. It had offered the 15 April 2024 as a start date to the resident but failed to notify the contractor when the resident agreed. This was a minor delay which the landlord resolved quickly once it was made aware. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord could have begun the mould treatments significantly earlier than it did.
25. In conclusion, it is clear there were delays in the landlord’s initial handling of damp and mould. There is insufficient evidence for us to reasonably conclude the landlord took all reasonable steps to identify and resolve the issues in a timely manner.
26. The landlord did acknowledge in its complaint responses it had failed to complete works within its policy timescales. Following its stage 1 response the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues improved. The evidence shows the landlord provided appropriate responses to the resident’s concerns about the mould treatment works. It kept the resident updated and took actions to progress the works while it looked for a suitable alternative property for the resident.
27. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our 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, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
28. The landlord made an offer of compensation which, when assessed using our remedies guidance, would be awarded where failures have occurred and these have adversely affected the resident. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
29. For these reasons, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

What we did not investigate

30. Our scheme rules say we may not consider complaints we have previously investigated and decided upon. The resident’s complaint included matters relating to the boundary between their property and their neighbour. This included issues relating to the fence and an access gate. We have already investigated these matters as part of a previous complaint the resident had escalated to us. As part of that previous investigation we also considered the landlord’s handling of ASB from April 2021 to July 2022. For these reason, this investigation will not consider any matters relating to the boundary or the landlord’s handling of ASB incidents that occurred before July 2022.
31. Our role in investigating complaints involving ASB is not to establish whether the ASB took place. Instead, it is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations.

What we did investigate

32. The resident’s direct neighbours owned their properties and were not tenants of the landlord. There is no indication the resident was not aware of this, or that the landlord would be limited in the actions it could take against the neighbours.
33. In July 2023 the resident reported their neighbour had redirected the downpipe from the gutter on their shed. They said this was causing water to follow into their garden and their garage. The landlord’s response advised the downpipe was within the neighbour’s boundary. It said it had given the same advice to the resident the previous month (June 2023). It does not appear the landlord treated this as an ASB issue. This decision was in line with its ASB policy which says it will not treat boundary issues as ASB.
34. Between 22 October 2023 and 28 October 2023 the resident sent CCTV footage of 63 incidents they believed were harassment by their neighbour. They advised they had also sent the footage to the police. The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy by opening an ASB case on 3 November 2023. The same day it referred the resident’s concerns to the local council’s ASB team and asked the police if they were taking any action. It also told the resident about what it had done.
35. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work with other organisations to tackle ASB. As the alleged perpetrators were not landlord tenants, it was reasonable for the landlord to approach the local council and police.
36. The landlord met with the resident and provided a further update in November 2023. This followed the resident providing more footage of their neighbours. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the footage, and it considered it did not show any harassment. It explained it could not take action against individuals who were not its tenants. It advised the resident to contact the local council’s ASB team and, if appropriate, the police. It said it would support those organisations in taking action if they deemed there was harassment, however, at that time, no such conclusion had been reached.
37. The landlord also signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in relation to concerns they had raised about a neighbour’s CCTV. The ICO is the relevant regulator for personal data matters (which could include the use of CCTV).
38. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed the actions taken by the landlord and the conclusions it had reached about the footage.
39. When escalating their complaint to stage 2 the resident detailed further incidents of possible ASB from their neighbours. They also raised concerns they had received letters about their behaviour from the landlord’s solicitors. The resident said the landlord had not discussed matters with them before escalating to its solicitors.
40. The resident provided further footage of incidents in January 2024. On 11 January 2024 the landlord confirmed it had reviewed the footage but its position remained unchanged. It provided the resident with details about how they could request an ASB Case Review from the local council. By providing this information, as well as it working with the local council ASB team and the police, the landlord demonstrated it was seeking to support the resident even where it was unable to take any direct action.
41. The landlord’s final complaint response explained it had received reports about unacceptable behaviour by the resident’s husband. It explained its solicitors had reviewed the evidence before sending any letters to the resident. The landlord also disagreed the resident had not been warned about its concerns.
42. There is insufficient evidence on which we could conclude the landlord had acted inappropriately by referring matters to its solicitors. This is an action it can take in line with its ASB policy and was not unreasonable.
43. Following its final response, the evidence shows the landlord met with the resident in January 2024 to discuss the ASB incidents that had not previously been reported. It confirmed where there was evidence available it would consider what actions, if any, it would take. It reiterated its ability to take action depended on which neighbours were involved and whether they were landlord tenants. It explained it may need to refer matters to the local council ASB team or the police.
44. In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. It provided the resident with clear explanations about why it was not taking any action. It referred matters to appropriate third-party organisations who would be able to take action, if appropriate, against the resident’s neighbours.
45. For this reason, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.

What we did not investigate

46. It is not our role to determine whether landlord’s staff members have misconducted themselves. That determination would be an employment matter between the landlord and the staff member. Our role is to consider whether the landlord appropriately considered the reports that had been made.

What we did investigate

47. The resident did not raise specific concerns about staff conduct until they escalated their complaint to stage 2.
48. The landlord’s final complaint response explained several of the staff members mentioned by the resident were no longer employed by it. It would therefore not be possible for it to take any further action. However, the evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and provided a response about those former staff members. This demonstrates it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and seeking to provide an outcome to all the matters they had raised.
49. For staff members still employed by the landlord, it provided a clear explanation about why it did not agree there had been any inappropriate behaviour. The evidence shows the landlord conducted an informed investigation which explained the decisions it reached. There was no evidence which suggests the landlord failed to act appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns.
50. For these reasons, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled reports of staff conduct.

51. The landlord’s complaint policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, says it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. For stage 2 escalations, it would respond within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation. The policy allowed an extension of 10 working days, if necessary, for providing a final response.
52. The landlord’s policy was in line with the Code (2022).
53. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within 10 working days. The landlord’s final response was issued after 30 working days. However, it did write to the resident after 16 working days to explain it would require additional time to consider all the matters the resident had raised.
54. The evidence shows, at both stages, it contacted the resident to confirm its understanding of the complaint. It also invited the resident to provide any additional relevant information. This was in line with its policy.
55. The landlord’s complaint policy says its Chief Executive will act as a critical friend where the matters raised at stage 2 are complex. This is to ensure all factors have been considered in reaching a determination. The landlord treated the resident’s escalation as complex and the evidence shows the Chief Executive was involved during the stage 2 process.
56. The landlord’s complaint responses were clear. At both stages of the complaint process, it provided full explanations to all the matters raised by the resident. The overall level of communication throughout the complaint process was good.
57. For these reasons, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.