One Housing Group Limited (202211045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211045

One Housing Group Limited

3 May 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is situated within a block of flats built in 2013. Her lease commenced in December 2014.
The resident initially reported that there was damp and mould in her property during 2020. In response, the landlord inspected the property and adjusted the balcony doors in December 2020. The resident reported the reoccurrence of damp and mould in January 2021 and subsequently raised a complaint with the landlord as it did not respond to the report. During February 2021, the landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident for its communication failure and arranged a surveyor inspection for 14 April 2021.
The landlord failed to attend the inspection and rearranged it for 3 June 2021. The landlord has not provided a record of the inspection but states it found no visible mould as the balcony doors had been open a lot in the warm weather, and advised the resident to get back in touch if the mould returned in the winter. In response the resident said that she had cleaned the mould and redecorated, and it was not a reasonable expectation that she live with mould growing on her walls and doors.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on various occasions during July and August 2021. On 24 August the landlord confirmed it would arrange for its surveyor to inspect again. In response the resident confirmed that there was no mould to inspect currently and she wanted the landlord to propose a solution rather than wait for her to get in touch when the mould returned. The resident chased the landlord for a response on several further occasions during September and October 2021 but the landlord did not respond to her.
On 6 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that she still had not received a response and she was raising a complaint about its handling of the matter. On 11 November the landlord said it had asked its maintenance manager to respond to the resident within 48 hours. On 1 December the resident told the landlord that she still had not heard further and wished to escalate her complaint. In response the landlord agreed to arrange another inspection of the property and this was carried out during February 2022. This identified the cause of the damp and mould to be condensation and a lack of ventilation.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports. She said the appearance of the mould coincided with the date the adjustments to the balcony doors were made, she had taken steps to allow air to circulate in the property and she should not have to “battle” to get this dealt with since December 2020. In response the landlord did not accept responsibility for causing damp and mould in the property but acknowledged that it could have done more to identify the cause of the damp and mould sooner. It proposed to carry out a further inspection of the property.
The landlord completed its inspection during April 2022 which found that the resident’s heat recovery unit (ventilation system) was not working. It concluded that this was likely to be the cause of the damp and mould in the property and advised the resident that she was responsible for replacing the unit. During May 2022, the landlord’s contractor inspected the unit and concluded that this had broken down due to a lack of maintenance.
During July 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had considered other possible causes of the damp and mould; the lack of trickle vents in the windows and the presence of cladding on the outside of the building. It had concluded that trickle ventilation was not required as a fully maintained and functioning air ventilation system was sufficient, and it had ruled out that the temporary cladding could be a cause.
After installing a new heat recovery unit, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. In this she said that the original unit had been installed incorrectly and disputed that this was the sole cause of damp in the property. The landlord issued its final response to the resident in November 2022. It said that its contractor’s report showed evidence that the old heat recovery unit had been operational for a period since the resident moved in, and she had not raised reports of damp and mould until 2020. It said that the old unit had clogged filters and the resident was unable to produce evidence of maintenance or servicing of the unit. It did not accept that the old unit had been incorrectly installed or that it was responsible for any damp and mould present in the property.
The resident subsequently informed the Ombudsman that she wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the damp and mould in her property and compensate her for her costs in dealing with this. The landlord informed the Ombudsman in January 2023 that it had offered the resident £1,540.76 to reimburse her for the cost of installing the replacement heat recovery unit.
The resident subsequently reported to the landlord that there had been a reoccurrence of the damp and mould, and in response the landlord arranged for an independent specialist to inspect the property in February 2023. The findings of the inspection were that the humidity levels within the property were excessive and the commissioning of the new heat recovery unit should be checked to ensure air intake was adequate and the system was working correctly in terms of the length of ductwork and design criteria. The landlord has since offered to assess the possibility of installing trickle vents to the windows, to inspect the balcony door seals and for its specialist to assess the heat recovery system.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property, including external doors and doorframes. The lease also confirms that the resident has the responsibility “to renew and replace from time to time all landlord’s fixtures and fittings at the property which may become beyond repair…”.
When a landlord receives a report of damp and mould from a resident, its first action should be to inspect the property and identify the cause of the damp and mould. However, the landlord was slow to progress the matter after the resident reported in January 2021 that the mould had returned and spread to new areas of the property after the balcony doors had been adjusted.
The landlord arranged an inspection for April 2021 but this was missed, and it eventually inspected in June 2021, nearly five months after the resident reported the reoccurrence of the damp and mould. As outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
There were further communication failures following this as the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to respond to her request that it propose a solution to the issue. However, much of the resident’s correspondence went unanswered and this led to her raising a complaint in December 2021.
Overall, the landlord failed to provide an appropriate response to the resident’s reports in 2021. It did acknowledge in its complaint response of March 2022 that it could have done more to identify the cause of the damp and mould sooner. However, it failed to offer any compensation for its failures (aside from the £50 offered in March 2021), and it did not acknowledge the repeated failure to respond to the resident in the latter half of 2021. Furthermore, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint and taken steps to improve its service delivery going forward. These failings amount to maladministration.
To put things right the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her a total of £400 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of this amount where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to review its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports and take the necessary remedial action to ensure the same failures do not recur.
In the complaint raised in December 2021, the resident raised concerns that the damp and mould was a result of the door repairs the landlord previously carried out, which had reduced the air flow in the property. In response, the landlord noted that the resident had reported mould previously, in early 2020, and therefore questioned whether the door repairs could be the cause of the mould. It also said it would arrange an inspection of the property to review this further.
The subsequent inspection found that there was no structural cause of damp and mould and recommended ventilation of the property. However, the inspection report did not address the resident’s concern that the repairs to the balcony doors coincided with mould forming on the doors. It was therefore appropriate that when the resident disputed the findings of the inspection, the landlord offered a further inspection by a senior surveyor. This also demonstrated that the landlord took into account the resident’s further concerns, one of which was that the information accompanying the heat recovery unit stated that its use removed the need for additional ventilation of the property.
The subsequent inspection found that the heat recovery unit was not functioning, thereby allowing damp and mould to form. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and it was therefore reasonable for it to conclude that the broken heat recovery unit was likely to be the cause of the damp and mould. It was also reasonable, given the terms of the lease, for the landlord to advise the resident that shewas responsible for replacing the broken heat recovery unit.
After the resident replaced the heat recovery unit she informed the landlord that the old unit had been incorrectly installed, and this would have had an impact on the damp levels in the property. In its final response, the landlord considered the conflicting reports from the resident’s contractor and its own contractor but did not accept that the old unit had been incorrectly installed. It also noted that the old ventilation system was severely clogged and the resident had not presented any evidence of maintenance of the system, which she was required to carry out in accordance with the terms of her lease.
Due to the conflicting reports, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to reach a conclusion on whether the old heat recovery unit had been incorrectly installed. However, it is understandable that the resident had concerns about the installation of the original unit. This is because it is not clear whether the landlord’s contractor inspected the part of the system (supply and extract valves) that the resident’s contractor identified as being installed incorrectly. Ultimately the landlord has now reimbursed the resident for the new unit and has therefore taken steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
However, it is of concern that the resident has continued to report damp and mould in her property since the heat recovery unit was replaced. As outlined above, the landlord arranged for an independent specialist to inspect and report on the matter, and explained the steps it will take to address the issue. An order has therefore been made that the landlord confirms its position on the recommendations outlined in the survey of February 2023 and any remedial action it will be taking to resolve the damp and mould issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould reports. This includes the £50 already offered.
3. Confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman its position on the recommendations outlined in the survey of 28 February 2023 and any remedial action it will be taking to resolve the damp and mould issue. This should include confirmation of the outcome of the assessment of the heat recovery system and whether this is working correctly in terms of the length of ductwork and design criteria.
4. Review its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports and take the necessary remedial action to ensure the same failures do not recur when handling damp and mould reports going forward. In doing so it should ensure its approach is in line with the recommendations of the spotlight report on damp and mould.
5. Orders a and b should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report and orders c and d should be completed within six weeks of the date of this report.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the amount of £1,540.76 it offered for the cost of the heat recovery unit, if this has not already been paid.
2. Investigates whether any other properties in the building are subject to damp and mould, and if so, the potential cause and the remedial action required.