Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

One Vision Housing Limited (202411243)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411243

One Vision Housing Limited

13 January 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. A leak from a neighbouring property.
    3. Discrimination by a member of staff.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, where she resides with her daughter. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 15 January 2024. She said that the surveyor had told her that her bathroom ceiling was not damp but it had since become a hole with damp and mould. She was unhappy with her neighbourhood services officer (NSO) who had refused to assist her with redecoration following damp and mould work. She said that her NSO refused everything she asked for and she believed this was discrimination.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024, the landlord said that its surveyor attended in November 2023 and found no visible signs of damp, mould or condensation. However, it raised additional work to alleviate her concerns. It had failed to gain access in January 2024 and asked her to make contact to arrange the work. It explained that it did not assist with decoration works following damp and mould treatments.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 13 May 2024. She also raised new concerns about a leak from the property above which she reported in March 2024. She said that her daughter had been unwell due to the damp in her home and that she was pregnant. She did not believe it was treating her issues as a priority.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response on 11 June 2024, the landlord explained the work it had undertaken in relation to damp and mould. It said that the mould was due to condensation, advised her not to dry clothes on radiators, and offered to install additional ventilation. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving a leak from the property above. It offered £120 towards the cost of paint and to replace the hallway flooring. It found no evidence that its officer had discriminated against her and apologised for any miscommunication.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted it to complete all repairs and increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that her daughter had been unwell due to the damp and mould in her home. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had discriminated against her. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service for guidance. We can, however, consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s response.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it has adopted a ‘zero tolerance’ stance to damp, mould or excessive condensation issues in its properties. It will treat signs of damp, mould or condensation and take steps to tackle root causes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident reported concerns with damp and mould in August 2020, and that it completed an inspection and mould wash. It also fitted a vent and upgraded the kitchen and bathroom fans. There were no further reports until February 2023 when it raised a new inspection but did not describe any required work. The resident raised concerns in August and November 2023 about the smell of damp in the bedroom and living room.
  3. In the resident’s complaint she said that the surveyor’s “machine” did not pick up any damp on her bathroom ceiling. However, a hole had appeared which was covered in mould. She said that she had damp and mould in every room.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that its surveyor attended the resident’s home on 29 November 2023 and found no visible signs of damp, mould or condensation. However, it had raised additional work to improve the ventilation in the bedroom. It would strip and treat the wall behind the bed to alleviate her concerns and repair the bathroom ceiling.
  5. The landlord said that its operatives attended on 22 November 2023 to carry out work but failed to gain access. It made a further appointment for 29 November 2023 where it completed mould treatments to the living room and bathroom. It said that further work was required, and its operatives attempted to attend on 8 and 18 January 2024 but failed to gain access. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange the work. It also stated that it was attempting to fit an air brick to the property to improve ventilation which had been requested by its surveyor.
  6. The landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrates that it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It had attempted to complete additional work but been unable to do so due to failed access. It was therefore reasonable to ask the resident to make contact to book a suitable appointment. There was also evidence that the landlord attempted to speak with the resident in April and May 2024 but was unsuccessful.
  7. In her escalation request the resident said that her daughter, who was under the age of 1, had been unwell due to the damp and mould. She was also 13 weeks pregnant. She had raised her concerns to her local councillor about how poorly her complaint had been handled and that no priority had been given to her reports of damp and mould.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 May 2024. It said that it was looking to visit her home with its area surveyor to discuss the outstanding work. It asked her to provide dates and times she would be available.
  9. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 3 June 2024. Its notes show that there was a small area in the living room which required attention, but the rest of the property had no concerns following damp meter readings. Its notes also reflected that it attended on 15 January 2024 to fit an air brick, but the work had been cancelled at the resident’s request.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated the dates it had attempted to visit in November 2023 and the surveyor’s findings. It confirmed its visit of 3 June 2024 and finding a small damp patch on the living room wall which required attention. It had completed a full inspection, taking damp meter readings throughout the property. She had raised concerns about the bedroom and presence of mould. Its surveyor had provided guidance on ventilating the property and avoiding wet clothes being dried in the room on radiators. It said that the mould present was due to condensation and offered to install additional ventilation in the room.
  11. The landlord said it had not identified any other damp in the resident’s home during its visit. It had raised an order to rectify the damp area in the living room which would commence on 25 June 2024. In addition, it had arranged for its grounds maintenance team to attend and cut back some of the shrubbery to the front of the property. This would ensure there were no air brick or ventilation obstructions. It did not uphold her complaint due to having responded to inspect her home following her reports, within its service level timescales, and its failed access attempts.
  12. The evidence shows that the landlord attended the resident’s home after each report to carry out inspections and raised orders to complete work. It is evident that there were unsuccessful visits made and attempts to contact the resident which caused some delays in completing the work. The landlord’s response was, therefore, reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
  13. The resident advised this Service on 16 October 2024 that she was still experiencing damp and mould issues in her home. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to carry out a further inspection.

Reports of a leak from a neighbouring property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident did not raise the issue of a leak in her original complaint but referred to this in her escalation request. The landlord appropriately logged a new stage 1 complaint and responded on 24 May 2024. This was in line with the Complaint Handling Code, paragraph 6.8, which states that where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
  3. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes 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.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported a leak on 23 March 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord raised orders to remove the bathroom flooring and supply a dehumidifier on 17 May 2024. It would renew the bathroom flooring once it had dried out. It would skim and paint the bathroom ceiling. It also referred to renewing the flooring in the hallway. While this demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports there was a delay of 7 weeks.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 May 2024, stating that she wanted it to move her to another property. Her NSO had “no clue” about the leak repairs despite the fact it had been ongoing since 23 March 2024.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that there had been issues with gaining access to the property above which resulted in delays in repairing the leak. It had since completed the repair and raised orders to repair the damage. It noted the resident’s concerns that it was sewage water which had leaked into her home and assured her that it was not sewage but was water from the kitchen. It acknowledged the delays, apologised for the inconvenience and offered £100 compensation.
  7. While the landlord acknowledged that the delays were due to failing to gain access to the flat above, it did not demonstrate how it had attempted to gain access or that it had considered any detriment to the resident. It could have considered taking action against the neighbour via an injunction. It apologised and offered to complete the repairs. However, its compensation offer of £100 was not proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident.
  8. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it could see that the resident had encountered delays to rectify the leak from the flat above. It acknowledged that work could have been completed sooner and the information communicated in a more clear and concise manner. It noted that she had been advised that the leak and water ingress originated from the soil stack from the above property. It confirmed that following a review of its systems the leak came from the basin in the bathroom from the property above.
  9. Following its visit, it was clear that there were still works required to rectify the damage following the leak. The landlord had raised an order and provided a list of dates to commence the work in June 2024. The work included replacing the bathroom flooring, replastering and painting the bathroom ceiling, and boxing around the WC. It apologised for the upset and inconvenience that may have been caused by the delays and miscommunication. It acknowledged that the hallway flooring had been damaged and offered to replace this once the work was complete. It offered £120 toward the cost of paint and would ensure that repairs were raised, communicated, and completed within a clear and timely manner in the future.
  10. While the landlord appropriately responded at stage 1 of its complaints process to the new matter, it then combined both stage 1 complaints into a single stage 2 response. While we appreciate that the landlord attempted to provide a comprehensive response, it should have kept the complaints separate and issued 2 individual responses.
  11. There was conflicting information provided in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses with regard to where the leak had originated from. In its stage 1 response it said that the leak was from the kitchen, whereas its stage 2 response said it was from the bathroom basin. That said, it reassured the resident that it had not been a sewage leak.
  12. Despite minor failings as set out above, the landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging and apologising for the delays. Its offer to replace the hallway flooring and complete repairs was reasonable in the circumstances. Its total compensation offer of £220 was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for the level of impact in the range of £100 to £600. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to this matter.
  13. Following the landlord’s final response the resident expressed her dissatisfaction. She said that the £120 was “insulting” considering the stress and discomfort she had to deal with for 6 weeks of damp. This also did not compensate her for the taxis she had to get to take her daughter to hospital or the 4 days cost of running a dehumidifier. The landlord offered to review the £120 compensation if she could provide receipts for any incurred costs. It is not known if the resident provided any receipts or whether the compensation offer was reviewed, however, its offer to carry out a review was reasonable.

Discrimination by a member of staff

  1. In the resident’s complaint she said that her NSO was discriminating against her. She had asked for help with redecoration as the mould had been treated with white paint, and was advised it was her responsibility. She believed the NSO declined everything she asked for, did not like her, and this was the reason for declining her a “paint pack”.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was brief and did not demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. In her escalation request the resident said that she felt her NSO “talked down” to her. The NSO had told her that she needed to be at home that day and said, “she had other properties to deal with”. She asked for a different NSO to take over as she was unhappy with her current officer’s tone.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 May 2024 stating that it was looking to visit the resident at home to discuss her allegations of discrimination.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it was sorry to hear that the resident felt communication with the officer had broken down. It had spoken with the officer about her concerns but was unable to identify any evidence that supported her claim of discrimination. The officer apologised for any miscommunication with regard to the leak to her property. It acknowledged her request for all future contact to be via email and apologised for any upset or inconvenience.
  5. We appreciate that being refused something would likely have been upsetting for the resident, however, the landlord’s final response demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns having spoken with the officer. It had previously explained that it did not offer assistance with redecoration following damp and mould work and apologised for any miscommunication. We, therefore, find that the landlord responded appropriately to this aspect of her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. Discrimination by a member of staff.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s reports of a leak from a neighbouring property.

Recommendations

  1. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident £220 if not already paid. This comprises £100 offered in its stage 1 response and £120 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should review its process for gaining entry to properties where there are leaks to ensure it provides a remedy in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord should carry out a further inspection of the resident’s home to assess any recurrence of damp and mould, and take necessary action where it is identified.

 

Chat to us