One Housing Group Limited (202224679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224679

One Housing Group Limited

27 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks to the property and subsequent damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident.

Background

The resident has a joint assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 3 December 2007. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The property covers two floors, including a lower basement level and ground floor. The landlord said that it has no known vulnerabilities on its record for the resident.
The resident’s daughter resides at the property with the resident. The resident’s daughter brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf as his representative. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
The resident reported several leaks affecting the property between November 2022 and March 2023. The resident reported the majority of the leaks to the landlord in November and December 2022. Due to the number of leaks reported by the resident within a short period, and leaks coming from different areas within the property, the Ombudsman has numbered the leaks as follows:
1. Leaks coming from under the flooring of the property at the basement level, which the resident reported on 9 November 2022 (leak 1).
2. A leak coming from the boiler of the neighbouring property (property A) which the resident reported on or around 19 November 2022 (leak 2).
3. A leak coming through the ceiling of the kitchen from the property above (property B) which the resident reported on 23 November 2022 (leak 3).
4. Water ingress through a front window, which the resident reported between 21 and 29 November 2022 (leak 4).
5. Issues with water coming through electrical points, which the resident reported on 5 December 2022 (leak 5).
On 20 November 2022, the resident wrote a complaint to the landlord in which he:
1. Requested the landlord to complete repairs to his property following a boiler leak from property A. The resident said the leak from the boiler had caused water damage to the basement level of his property. The resident said the landlord had not told him when it would carry out repairs to resolve the leak. The resident said he had called the landlord several times, but it had not attended the property.
2. Said he was concerned for the health and safety of himself and his family as there was damp and mould in the property. The resident said there was mould on the ceilings, skirting boards, cupboards and clothing.
3. Requested a permanent move from the property. The resident said the property was cold, damp and there were ongoing leaks.
4. Said the landlord had eventually identified the leak, but it had not turned off the water supply to the boiler to reduce the damage caused to the property.
On 5 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it:
1. Said it had attended the property on 9 November 2022 but could not trace any active leaks.
2. Said it tried to attend the property on 17 November 2022, but an operative was unable to gain access to the property.
3. Said it attended the property on 21 November 2022 and completed a joint inspection of the resident’s property and property A. The landlord said it repaired a leak in property A the same day. The landlord said it returned on 22 November 2022 to repair a second leak in property A and wet-vacuumed the ground floor to remove the water. The landlord said once the residual moisture had dried from property A, it would “resolve the issues” in the resident’s property.
4. Said it had attended the building again following the resident’s report of leak 3 but it could not gain access to carry out repairs as a plumber was already on site. The landlord said it had carried out another inspection on 25 November 2022 following reports of leak 4 and said it would arrange a further visit to carry out a repair to the window and mould-wash the resident’s walls.
5. Offered a total of £150 compensation (£50 for late repairs and £100 for “impact and inconvenience”).
On 12 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said the offer of compensation was not appropriate. The resident said the property was severely damaged and water was still “pouring into the property”. The resident said there was damp and mould “everywhere”.
Throughout December 2022, the resident raised further reports of leaks affecting the property and the presence of damp and mould. The landlord also carried out repair works to the resident’s front window, a mould wash at the resident’s property and repairs to the neighbouring properties. This included repairs to stack pipes in properties A and B. However, the resident reported that the leaks persisted and said water had also entered electrical outlets and light fittings.
On 12 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it:
1. Offered an apology for the distress and damage caused to the resident and his property. The landlord acknowledged that the issue remained unresolved.
2. Said it had been working to source several leaks from other properties that may have still been affecting the resident’s property. The landlord said it had maintained regular contact with the resident throughout December 2022 up until 10 January 2023.
3. Said it had found the main source of the leak in property B and this had affected the cavity wall in the resident’s property. The landlord said it had repaired a boiler leak from property B on 5 January 2023, but it had also found a hidden leak in the soil stack in property A which it was investigating further.
4. Said it was reviewing a temporary decant for the resident and his family. The landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact and advised that sourcing the leaks could be complex.
5. Said it had discussed the need for better management of complex issues with its staff and the importance of following out processes regarding leaks. The landlord acknowledged it should have been more proactive in investigating the source of the leak.
6. Increased the offer of compensation from £150 to £400 in recognition of the “prolonged time” taken to resolve the leaks in the building and the impact on the resident and his family.
Between January and March 2023, the resident sent over 13 emails to the landlord and said the mould was getting worse, the leaks persisted, he was unhappy with the communication from the landlord, and he wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. During this time, the landlord carried out several mould washes at the property and provided the resident with a dehumidifier. The landlord also carried out a number of inspections at the resident’s property and the building to assess the leaks and the subsequent damp and mould.
On 26 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor produced a report and noted that several soil vent pipes had split in the building which had affected multiple properties. The surveyor suspected this was because the soil vent pipes did not have room for expansion and said further investigations were required.
On 2 March 2023, an independent RICS Chartered Surveyor inspected the building and provided a report commenting on the defects present. This investigation will not relay the entirety of the report, but a summary of the points raised were:
1. The building had suffered extensive water damage affecting a number of properties. The surveyor said there were 14 soil vent pipes running the height of the building and the exposed pipes had no allowance for expansion and contraction where they passed through concrete floor slabs. The surveyor noted a number of splits in the soil vent pipes and said the landlord had repaired some of the pipes, but further works were required.
2. The roof membrane was in poor condition.
3. Water staining and leaks were identified in the resident’s property. The surveyor advised dehumidifiers should be “reinstated” to the property and the process could take 1-3 months for the property to dry out.
4. Regarding the resident’s property, the surveyor said the flooring at the lower ground floor level, the flooring to the upper ground floor kitchen, the damp affected plaster linings in the bedroom and the damp affected ceiling required removal. The surveyor advised that once it had been confirmed through monitoring that no further water was entering the wall cavity from property B above, the bay window area and wall surfaces could be reinstated.
The landlord provided a temporary decant to the resident and his family between 29 March and 11 April 2023, although the resident said this was until 13 April 2023. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it completed repairs to the stack pipes on 7 April 2023. The landlord provided a further decant to the resident and his family between 18 and 28 June 2023. The landlord said the majority of the remaining remedial works began on 19 June 2023 and it completed all remaining works on 7 July 2023. The landlord said it resolved the damp and mould issues upon completion of the works on 7 July 2023 including decorative repairs and repairs to the root cause of the leak.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said he is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and his reports of damp and mould for the following reasons:
1. The resident said the landlord has not compensated him and his family for damaged items caused by the damp and mould including damage to furniture, clothing and personal belongings.
2. The resident is unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. The resident said while the landlord provided a decant when the main remedial works began, this was only for a few weeks at a time, whereas he said other properties were decanted for longer periods into stable temporary accommodation.
4. The resident said the property is still cold and damp and he would like a permanent transfer into another property. The resident also said there is a £200 decant payment outstanding which the landlord has not paid.
5. The resident said there are outstanding issues in the property including water droplets present on the ceiling of the main bathroom, a cracked door near the washing machine, issues with a window not shutting properly, water between two glass panels in the living room, a heater socket which the resident said has not been properly connected, a suspected leak coming from a bathroom ceiling/issues with pipework and spots of damp and mould still present in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has provided repair records showing historic leaks affecting the property between 2018 and 2021. The repair records also show previous reports of damp and mould in the property in August 2020. However, it is not clear whether the previous leaks contributed to the damp and mould referred to in the resident’s complaint on 20 November 2022 or, if these were separate issues.
While it is concerning that the repair records show that the resident has experienced this issue at his property for several years, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the Ombudsman has referred to previous issues with damp and mould to provide context to the resident’s complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from November 2022 onwards when the resident made a complaint to the landlord about leaks, damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks to the property

There was a lack of communication from the landlord following the resident’s report of a leak at the property on 9 November 2022 (leak 1).
While an operative attended the property on the same day as the resident reported the issue, it was unable to trace any leaks and suspected this was from rising underground water levels due to rainfall. The contractor recommended a further inspection.
The resident said he called the landlord over 40 times between 9 and 19 November 2022 about leaks affecting the property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the number of calls made by the resident between 9 and 19 November 2022, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the frequency and nature of the resident’s calls to determine the urgency and severity of the leak.
There were delays in the landlord attending the property to investigate the cause of the reported water ingress in the basement level. There was a delay of 10 days from the landlord’s first visit from 9 November 2022 to the landlord’s attendance on 19 November 2022, at which point the landlord’s repair records stated that the basement level of the property had “completely flooded” and the leak had affected multiple properties.
It is not clear what inspections took place to trace the leak, but the landlord’s repair records show that the operative requested a further inspection to investigate the cause of the water ingress. From the evidence provided, it does not appear that the landlord updated the resident with a timescale for when a further investigation would take place. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an estimated date to investigate the source of the leak in order to manage his expectations and offer assurance that it was looking to resolve the issue.
The landlord said it attempted to access the property on 17 November 2022, however, there is no evidence that the landlord gave the resident reasonable notice of the appointment. It is an implied tenancy term and best practice for landlords to inform residents of any appointments in advance and, where it can, to state what work it will undertake during the appointment. Where an appointment is missed, the resident should be notified promptly of the missed appointment, either by contacting the resident or leaving a calling card.
Once the landlord was aware of a leak affecting the property on 9 November 2022, it should have arranged for an inspection within a reasonable time. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. It is not clear whether the landlord categorised the repair as “emergency” or “routine” but the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend “routine” repairs within 7 working days and emergency repairs within “3 hours” (making safe any repairs within 24 hours).
When the operative attended the property on 19 November 2022 in respect of leak 1, the resident said the operative identified further water was coming from the boiler of property A. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response refers to a boiler leak from property B. Therefore, it is not clear which boiler the leak originated from or whether there were leaks from both of the boilers in property A and property B.
There were further delays between 19 and 21 November 2022 in the landlord assessing, containing and repairing the leaks (leaks 1 and 2) affecting the resident’s property. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident asked why the landlord did not turn off the water supply to the boiler sooner to reduce the damage to his property. The resident said he had to contact Thames Water to turn off the water to control the leak. When an operative attended the property on 19 November 2022, there is no evidence they carried out any works to contain the leak. The landlord’s repair records and out-of-hours report dated 19 November 2022 refer to multiple properties affected by the leak, but the operative did not record any repairs. The landlord said a plumber attended the property on 21 November 2022 and located a water leak coming from a neighbouring bathroom stack pipe. Internal notes provided by the landlord also state that on 21 November 2022, an “operative stemmed the flow of water from the boiler of the neighbouring property, but outstanding repairs were required”.
While the landlord’s repair records categorised the leak as an “emergency”, it failed to stem the source of the leak for 2 days, which is over the time stated in the landlord’s repair policy which states it will complete or make safe a repair within 24 hours.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out some repairs in November and December 2022, but this did not fully resolve the leaks affecting the resident’s property. The landlord said it identified issues with the stack pipes in property A and property B. The landlord’s repair summary indicates it carried out some temporary repairs to the stack pipes on 21 November 2022 and additional repairs on 15 December 2022, as well as completing an isolation valve replacement at property B on this date. The landlord said it attended property B again on 4 January 2023 and carried out further repairs to the pressure relief valve for an unvented cylinder. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 5 January 2023 to address a leak in the cavity wall which the landlord suspected water had penetrated from the upstairs leak. On this date, the landlord also found a hidden leak in the soil stack of property A.
Following the resident’s reports of leak 3, the landlord said it attended property B on 23 November 2022, but it was refused access as the tenant said a plumber was already attending. The landlord said that access issues at several properties caused delays in resolving and repairing the leaks. Section 5.3 of the landlord’s repairs policy states tenants and leaseholders must allow the landlord “reasonable access to [their] home to inspect or carry out repairs, servicing or other necessary work. Failure to do so may result in legal action and jeopardise [their] tenancy.” While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the actions of other neighbouring properties, the landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest it considered or enforced its policy to alleviate issues regarding access, particularly given the severity of the leaks and the number of properties affected.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that once the landlord had identified there were issues with the stack pipes in the building, it instructed a surveyor to carry out further investigations. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that the stack pipe issue affected multiple properties and was a large-scale project requiring significant planning and project management.
However, while it is somewhat reasonable that there may be delays in finding the source of a leak due to the access of pipework and the complexity of the issue, it appears that the landlord only recognised the severity of the leaks from 19 November 2022 when it attended the property and found the ground floor of the resident’s property had flooded and noted other properties had been affected. Furthermore, this investigation has outlined several leaks, not just leaks originating from soil vent pipes, which the landlord should have actioned within its urgent repair timescales.
The resident reported that water was coming through electrical outlets in December 2022. On 1 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and said the electrics were “faulty” and water was inside the electrical sockets. The landlord has confirmed it did not carry out an electrical inspection at the property, as only a plug socket was affected. The landlord said it disconnected the socket and then reconnected it while it carried out remedial works. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that other electrical outlets were checked in the property to confirm they were safe and in working order. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed the issue with the resident to provide reassurance that the electrical points had been properly inspected and were safe to use. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident, discuss his concerns and carry out a full inspection of the electrics in the property. The landlord should then have contacted the resident to discuss the outcome of the inspection and any remedial works required.
In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. It appears it did not stop the leak when it attended on 9 November 2022.
2. It did not attend the property again until 10 days later when the property was flooded.
3. It did not update the resident with a timescale for when a further investigation would take place.
4. It appears it did not remain in regular communication with the resident following reports of leak 1.
5. When an operative attended the property on 19 November 2022, there is no evidence they carried out any works to contain the leak. The landlord’s repair records, and out-of-hours report dated 19 November 2022, refer to multiple properties affected by the leak, but the operative did not record any repairs.
6. It appears it did not consider its policies to alleviate issues regarding access to properties, particularly given the severity of the leaks and the number of properties affected.
7. It did not contact the resident, discuss his concerns and carry out a full inspection of the electrics in the property.

Subsequent damp and mould

Due to the close succession of the leaks affecting the property, the exact cause of the damp and mould is not clear. It is not clear whether it was one of these leaks that caused the damp and mould or whether the leaks were cumulative and equal contributing factors such as the moisture left by the leaks not drying out.
There were delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould. When the resident raised reports of damp and mould on 20 November 2022, the landlord should have carried out an investigation into the cause within a reasonable time. While it eventually did this, the first report submitted by the landlord’s surveyor was on 26 January 2023. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the building to establish the cause of historic “damp penetration resulting in mould growth”. The surveyor noted several soil vent pipes had split and the pipes did not have room for expansion. However, the surveyor noted that further investigations would be required. While the Ombudsman understands the delays were due to multiple complex leaks affecting several properties, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
There were delays between the surveyor’s inspection on 26 January 2023 and the independent RICS report on 2 March 2023 to confirm the cause of the water ingress, damp and mould. Given that the resident was still raising reports of leaks on 1 March 2023, and the leaks had been ongoing since November 2022, it would have been appropriate for the inspection to be carried out sooner to establish the cause of the leaks and whether previous repair attempts had been successful. The landlord said the RICS inspection was delayed due to illness and the delay in starting the repair works was due to procuring and preparing a tender for contractors. While the Ombudsman understands that issues with availability cannot always be avoided, the landlord should have taken the appropriate steps to ensure any delays were communicated effectively with the resident.
When the resident first reported damp and mould in the property, there were 17 days until the landlord conducted a mould wash. From the evidence provided, the landlord carried out at least 9 mould washes over 3 months while it worked to identify and resolve the cause of the damp and mould. While the use of mould washes was in line with good practice, the landlord failed to monitor the effectiveness of the mould washes to ensure they were working correctly in minimising the level of mould in the property. It failed to monitor the effectiveness of the mould washes with the resident and failed to discuss this further with the resident to explore other options or resolutions to alleviate his concerns.
In an internal email dated 8 February 2023, the landlord asked for approval to decant 3 properties, including the resident’s home, on the basis that the homes were “unfit for occupation” due to “serious damp, mould and water ingress”. The landlord then withdrew the decant request on 10 February 2023 as it said dehumidifiers and mould washes were “keeping damp and mould at bay”. It is unclear why the landlord retracted the decant request 2 days later without carrying out an assessment or survey to identify potential risks and hazards in the property. This was not appropriate.
The resident said he was unhappy that the landlord did not decant him and his family into stable and suitable accommodation, despite raising concerns for their health and safety as a result of reoccurring damp and mould. The resident requested a long-term temporary decant or property transfer on at least 7 occasions including 20 November 2022, 5 and 29 January, 26 February, 27 and 31 March and 17 April 2023. The landlord provided a temporary decant on 2 occasions for approximately 2 weeks at a time while remedial works took place. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the availability of properties at the time, the resident said that he and his family were frequently moved around different hotels during this time which impacted work, the resident and his family’s wellbeing and caused distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that “if it is unsafe for the occupants to remain in the property while the works are carried out, alternative accommodation arrangements will be made”. While the RICS survey undertaken on 2 March 2023 said the resident could remain in the property, this was on the understanding that the landlord would carry out regular inspections and mould washes. On 20 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there were “mushrooms” growing in the house and that the damp and mould were getting worse. A further mould wash did not take place until 30 March 2023. While the RICS report said the resident could remain in the property, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord undertook further surveys to assess the level of damp and mould in the property after the resident reported mushrooms and/or fungi in the property.
A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Once the landlord was on notice that there was damp and mould affecting the property, and the resident had raised concerns about whether the property was fit for habitation, it should have decided whether a decant was required. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk‑based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that dehumidifiers were issued to the resident in mid-January 2023. It is not clear why the landlord did not provide dehumidifiers sooner, given the water ingress and damp reported by the resident in November 2022.
The resident raised concerns about damage to his belongings in November 2022 which he said was a result of damp and mould in the property. The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of damage to clothing, belongings and furniture until July 2023 when it referred the resident to its insurers. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s insurers have declined the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. However, in accordance with s4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s reports of damage in accordance with its discretionary compensation policy to establish whether it should offer a contribution towards the cost of his personal belongings. The resident has also advised that there is a £200 decant payment which has not been paid by the landlord for expenses covering the decant period. The Ombudsman has not had access to all information relating to agreed decant payments. As such, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding payments that it may have previously agreed with the resident.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said he initially felt blamed for reports of damp and mould and said that the landlord had suggested this was due to the resident’s lifestyle. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence that the landlord indicated the damp and mould were due to the resident’s lifestyle in its responses to him. However, in communicating with residents, landlords should review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
The resident has explained that his wife has developed breathing problems as a result of the mould in the property. Under sections 2 and 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, a landlord is required to ensure that a property is not left on a condition which is likely to cause harm to a resident or damage to their goods. It is now widely accepted that mould can cause asthma (see: Can damp and mould affect my health? – NHS (www.nhs.uk) and the European Respiratory Review).
However, when there is injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions about the cause of the breathing problems based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord about damp and mould in the property over several months. The resident raised concerns about the impact on his and his family’s health. The landlord failed to acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident in its complaint responses. It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where water was ingressing during the winter months. This, the resident explained, had a significant impact on the mental well-being of him and his family. While the Ombudsman is not able to determine that the landlord caused injury to the resident – we can say that the impact on the resident over this period was likely considerable.
The resident has requested to be moved permanently into a different property as he said the property is cold and there is persistent damp. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. It is recommended that the landlord should support the resident with his request to move from his current property and discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.
The landlord said it has completed all repair works at the property. However, the resident said there is a range of issues that have still not been fully resolved including spots of mould in the property, 2 sockets which have not been properly fixed to the wall (one being for an electric heater and another being a plug socket in the main bedroom), the living room window has not been replaced, there is a cracked door in the utility section and the main bathroom ceiling has water droplets on it. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident has raised these issues with the landlord, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange an inspection to assess and resolve any outstanding works or leaks affecting the property.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have been more proactive in investigating the leaks. It offered compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and the impact this had on the resident and his family. While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the severe failings identified. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on his ability to enjoy his home and he spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses and updates on repair works.
In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. There were delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould.
2. There were delays between the surveyor’s inspection on 26 January 2023 and the independent RICS report on 2 March 2023 to confirm the cause of the water ingress, damp and mould. The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to ensure any delays were communicated effectively with the resident.
3. It failed to monitor the effectiveness of the mould washes with the resident and failed to discuss this further with the resident to explore other options or resolutions to alleviate his concerns.
4. It appears the landlord did not fully consider whether a long-term temporary decant was required. The landlord retracted the decant request 2 days later without carrying out an assessment or survey to identify potential risks and hazards in the property.
5. It did not assess the level of damp and mould in the property after the resident reported mushrooms and/or fungi in the property.
6. It failed to address the resident’s reports of damage to clothing, belongings and furniture until July 2023 when it referred the resident to its insurers.

The landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident

The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure within 10 working days. It also responded to the resident’s escalation request and provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The complaint response times were appropriate, in line with good practice, and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
However, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint. For example, while it recognised in its stage 1 response that the resident had complained about damage to his personal belongings for which he requested compensation, it did not acknowledge this or offer any resolution. This is a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
On 7 January 2023, the resident asked if the landlord had checked a neighbouring boiler for any leaks and if the landlord’s contractors had identified any leaks on previous visits to the building. The resident raised this query between the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The resident said he had been told by a plumber that the boiler was a major issue and the floor where the boiler was located was “soaking”. The resident asked how this could have happened and suggested that the neighbouring property must have known about the water escaping. The resident also raised dissatisfaction that it had been 2 months since he had reported issues, and that damp and mould were present in “every room”. While the resident did not raise the specific concerns about the boiler as part of his formal complaint, the landlord does not appear to have responded to his queries in writing. In accordance with paragraph 5.7 of the Code, where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, any complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The landlord’s communication with the resident between November 2022 and March 2023 was inconsistent, leaving the resident chasing for updates and a date for the repairs. While the landlord responded to MP enquiries made on the resident’s behalf, it does not appear the landlord responded to the resident’s emails with the same level of information. From the evidence provided, the landlord acknowledged the majority of the resident’s emails and said it would be “passed to the relevant team” but failed to follow this with a detailed and meaningful response. The landlord’s responses sometimes lacked any substance and did not always alleviate the resident’s concerns, evidenced by the resident chasing for a response.
From the evidence provided, the resident repeatedly chased for updates and responses to his concerns regarding the repair works. The resident said this left him feeling that he had no choice but to instruct legal representatives in January 2023. The lack of clarity and lack of information would have likely made the resident feel frustrated and that his concerns were not being listened to. Landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution. Landlords should also consider that causing residents to use legal processes will have cost consequences – which can be avoided.
While the landlord said it regularly kept the resident updated, the evidence does not fully support this. The landlord referred to 20 separate ‘contact points’ with the resident between November and December 2022. Despite this, there does not appear to be evidence of all the ‘contact points’ for example, a telephone note, telephone/attendance record, or follow up email summarising any discussions the landlord had with the resident. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident. While the landlord offered some redress, it failed to put matters right by addressing all of the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks to the property and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and communication with the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The Chief Executive must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £4,725, broken down as follows:
  1. £4,500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs to the leaks and subsequent damp and mould between November 2022 and March 2023.
  2. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication and complaint handling failures.

The total compensation replaces the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any of the £400 already paid to the resident if applicable.

Contact the resident to discuss his report of damage to his personal belongings and establish whether it should offer a contribution towards the costs incurred or whether this is being considered by its insurer.
Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan are to be shared with the resident and this service.

The landlord must, within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take. The landlord must share the review with the Ombudsman and the review must include:
  1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
  2. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
  3. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
  4. a review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.
  5. a review of its access arrangements in cases of uncontrollable leaks.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraphs 61 and 62. It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding decant payments.
The landlord should support the resident with his request to move from his current property and discuss his options with him if it has not done so already.