One Manchester Limited (202450961)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat with his partner and 2 young children. The resident has asthma, and he told the landlord he believes his young child does to.

What the complaint is about

2. We have looked at the landlords:
   1. Handling of the damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould

4. The landlord attended in line with its damp and mould policy and its repairs policy to complete the required works. However, there were delays at times with it raising the necessary inspections causing the resident to chase the landlord.
5. The landlord appropriately reflected on these failings, highlighted the learning it had undertaken as a result and offered compensation commensurate with the failings found in this report.

Complaint handling.

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our 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.

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 looked at

7. In the complaint the resident raised the impact the damp and mould had on his and his family’s 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 evidence. We have not investigated this further but have considered the overall distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident, in his complaint, said the property had damp and mould since 2021. While we do not dispute this, we can only consider complaints which were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue occurring. We have therefore only considered the period from January 2023 until the stage 2 response in August 2024.

9. Following reports of damp and mould in the property in January 2023, the landlord attended to inspect the issue and appropriately raised works for a mould treatment and to renew the kitchen and bathroom fans. It arranged to attend to complete the work in line with its repairs policy.
10. When it attended to renew the fans however, the resident was not in, and it left a calling card for the resident to rearrange the appointment. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that either the landlord or resident rearranged the appointment.
11. The stage 1 response in February 2024 noted that the landlord had reraised a works order to inspect and repair the fans, but it has not provided evidence to confirm when it did this, which indicates a record keeping issue. However, it was appropriate that it raised for it’s operative to complete the necessary works as part of its commitment to resolve the damp and mould in the property.
12. Following the damp and mould treatment in March 2023, the resident reported the issue had reoccurred on 12 April 2023 at which point the landlord arranged for a further mould treatment on 19 May 2023. While this was appropriate, given the resident reported the issue had reoccurred so soon after the first treatment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered completing a further damp survey to understand the root cause of the issue, in line with its policy. We cannot see that it did so.
13. The resident reported the issue again during a tenancy visit on 30 October 2023 and while the landlord appropriately arranged to complete an inspection, it scheduled this for 3 January 2024; 39 days outside of the 5 working day timescale set out in its policy. Landlord’s need to take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould, to assess the risk and undertake remedial works to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity.
14. When the landlord attended on 3 January 2024 it left a no access card as it said the resident was not home. While the resident accepts the operative left a calling card, he said he was in at the time of the visit. We cannot make a determination either way in relation to this issue, however the landlord apologised and said it had undertaken learning to ensure it called a resident when they did not answer the door.
15. The landlord completed the inspection on 19 January 2024 and while it has not provided details of that inspection, it did raise works for further mould treatment in the property. However, again, it is unclear if the landlord looked to understand the root cause of the issue given that it would have been aware the issue kept recurring.
16. It completed the mould wash on 3 February 2024, in line with its published repair timescales.
17. During a phone call on 6 March 2024, the resident confirmed the mould had not returned but he was concerned that it would return. Therefore, the landlord appropriately agreed to visit the resident to discuss his concerns. Given the recurring issues and the distress caused to the resident it was appropriate of the landlord to agree to visit.
18. The visit note shows the landlord found no evidence of mould in the property, but the landlord has not provided evidence of anything discussed during the visit in relation to the resident’s concerns. This is evidence of a record keeping issue. The landlord needs to ensure it keeps accurate records of all resident contact including the details of home visits.
19. Throughout April and May 2024, the resident continued to report concerns about damp and mould, so the landlord appropriately arranged for a further inspection, which found no evidence of mould in the property. While we understand the damp and mould in the property caused distress to the resident, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified surveyors when they say there was no damp and mould issue in the property. It was therefore reasonable that it did not raise further works in relation to damp and mould at that time.
20. However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have discussed the concerns with the resident again, provided guidance around moisture in the home if necessary and to have clarified with him why it would not undertake further works. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did so.
21. The resident reported on 11 June 2024 that the damp and mould had returned, however, we cannot see that the landlord took any action until it received correspondence from a local councillor in relation to the issue on 8 July 2024. While the landlord was satisfied the property did not have a damp and mould issue, it would have been appropriate for it to have spoken to the resident to understand his concerns. Doing so would have enabled it to understand the nature and extent of the damp and mould and consider if it did need to take further action, especially given that he had young children.
22. Following the councillor’s enquiry, which noted the resident said there was mould in every room, the landlord attended within 5 days, in line with its policy, to inspect the property on 9 July 2024. The inspection found a small section of mould on the skirting board, and it appropriately raised the necessary treatment.
23. The landlord also noted that it was concerned about humidity in the property and therefore arranged to install monitoring equipment to understand the issues affecting the property. It did this on 29 July 2024 and its swift action highlighted its commitment to understand the root cause of any issues in the home. The landlord confirmed, in the stage 2 response on 6 August 2024, that it would monitor the property for 6 weeks following which it would consider if it needed to undertake any further action. This was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
24. In the complaint the resident said his items had been damaged due to the damp and mould. The landlord appropriately referred the resident to its compensation policy and recommended that he fill in a claim form for consideration.
25. During the complaint process, the resident said that due to his concerns about damp and mould he had applied to the local authority to move property. He said the Local Authority had told him the delay in his application was due to the landlord not processing its part of the application. In investigating this, the landlord accepted that the resident had been waiting a long time to move. It said that due to the delay and the resident’s ongoing concerns with the damp and mould it would make him a direct offer for a property. This response was reasonable and highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolve the situation for the resident.
26. It is important to note that the landlord has not provided the details to show when during the complaint process the resident raised the above issue, or the specific details of his escalation request, which indicates a record keeping failure. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
27. In concluding the complaint, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to acknowledge the failings in its handling of the damp and mould issue. While its handling of the issue could have been better, the landlord’s offer of compensation, apology, willingness to learn from its mistakes, and commitment to resolve the issue for the resident amount to a finding of reasonable redress.

28. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord responded at both stages of the complaint within its published timescales.

Learning

29. In this case, the landlord showed that, during the complaints process, it reflected on the failings it had found and considered what lessons it could learn. It shared this information with the resident, showing its commitment to improving its services going forward.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlords repair logs were of good quality in this case; it showed that it kept good records of the works raised. However, the record keeping in relation to its communication with the resident, clear records of home visits and the inspections undertaken were not of good quality and lacked detail. The landlord needs to ensure it has systems in place to store all information in relation to repairs and it should consider undertaking an assessment using our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.