Onward Homes Limited (202014307)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014307

Onward Homes Limited

30 November 2021

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 report of damp and mould in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom property. The tenancy agreement and property details have not been provided but it has not been disputed that the resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord stated that there were no vulnerabilities recorded. The complaint correspondence from the resident details the personal health circumstances of the resident and her son.
The resident lives with her son who is autistic. They are both asthmatic, and the resident suffers from anxiety and depression. The resident provided a doctor’s note to the landlord in February 2021 which explained how the damp and mould affected her and advised that she be relocated.
The landlord’s repair obligations are to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building, including roof tiles, gutters, drains and pipes. It must respond to repairs within a reasonable timeframe (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985). It also has an obligation to keep the property fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to the repair and uphold the resident’s right of freedom from damp (Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2019).
The landlord is responsible for painting and decorating, repairs to internal walls and ceilings and damp where this has been caused by disrepair (Repair Handbook).
The tenancy agreement has not been provided. The landlord and resident are in agreement that the tenancy states that the landlord will not be liable for damage due to flooding or leaks. However, the resident disputes the landlord’s response to her request for compensation (that she should go to her insurer) because she said that the landlord did not respond to her report of damp for a year.
The landlord’s target timescales vary in respect of emergency repairs (four hours), urgent repairs (five working days) and routine repairs (20 working days). When a repair is reported the landlord is to let the resident know which category it falls under. Examples of urgent repairs include minor roof leaks, broken windows, and water that cannot be easily contained. All other repairs are considered to be routine (Repair Handbook).
The landlord has not provided details of its repair response guidance in respect of vulnerable residents.
Contractors are expected to explain what they are going to do, tell the resident approximately how long it will take and outline any disruption. Post inspection works are also carried out (Repair Handbook).

Summary of events

On 25 February 2020 the resident reported a repair to the landlord about damp and mould in the property. A job was raised for 22 April 2020. This was cancelled by the resident as she was isolating at the time (16 April 2020). The landlord did not rearrange the appointment.
The landlord’s initial diagnosis of the repairs has not been seen. Taken from the correspondence and varied job descriptions, the repairs were that there was a leak coming in from the ceiling/walls, causing penetrating damp and mould within the property. This was caused by crumbling brickwork to the front and back of the property and broken guttering. The resident explained that this affected the whole of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2020 after having no communication about the repair. The landlord raised a job and this was booked for 4 August 2020. The contractor referred the job back to the landlord “for the correct repair to be raised”. No further action was taken.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 October 2020. A job was ordered on 5 October 2020 to replace rotten timber gutter to the front elevation. It was considered that water was penetrating through broken guttering. Another job was ordered on 12 October 2020 to repair the cracked brickwork to the front elevation as this was also considered to be allowing water penetration. An appointment was arranged for 28 October 2020. No one turned up. The contractor did not update the resident about the reason why they could not attend (they later told the landlord that that they were delayed on another job).
Another appointment was booked for 2 November 2020, but the work was not carried out because when the contractor attended, no scaffolding had been put up.
A job was ordered on 11 November 2020 to repair the crumbling brickwork beneath the kitchen window at the rear.
After several failed appointments, the resident expressed her concerns to the landlord (15 December 2020) and the landlord booked an inspection for 7 January 2021.
The scaffolding was arranged for 21 December 2020 and the work was arranged for 22 December 2020.
On 10 December 2020 the contractor cancelled the repair job (for 22 December 2020) and rebooked this for 19 January 2020. The resident contacted the landlord to enquire about the cancellation and it said that the scaffold company was closed so it could not complete the repair.
On 14 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about the damp and condensation inside of the property. She sent it pictures of the mushroom on the external wall. This was raised as an urgent repair and booked in for 16 December 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on the day to confirm that the appointment would go ahead, and it was confirmed for the afternoon. However, the contractor did not attend and the appointment was rebooked for 22 December 2020. This appointment was also not attended. When the resident chased this, she was told that this was due to staff sickness (but the resident had not been told).
The landlord’s records also state that on 16 December 2020 a visit was carried out and the landlord found “no scaffolding or operatives on site”.
The resident raised concern about the delays. The landlord acknowledged that one of the repairs was urgent and brought the appointment forward to 6 January 2021. On 6 January 2021 the contractor attended the appointment but did not complete the required work (because “follow on trade was needed”). This was rebooked for 1 February 2021.
On 7 January 2021 there was an inspection. The inspection notes state that “there is penetrating damp to this property” and “work has been raised for a considerable time to rectify these issues as follows”. The inspection note outlined some of the jobs which were raised in October and November to replace/ repair the guttering and brickwork and the inspection which was raised following the resident’s call to the landlord on 15 December 2020. The note went on to state “following my inspection all of the above work has been chased up with (the contractor) with the start dates of 5 February 2021 and 16 February 2021 booked for them”.
The guttering repair was due on 19 January 2021 and on 18 January 2021 the resident called the landlord 3 times to chase the scaffolding, as she believed that this needed to be arranged on the day for the roofing repair (guttering) to take place the next day. The contractor told the landlord that they would install the scaffolding the next day. This did not take place, and on 19 January 2021 the contractor said that it could not complete the repair without the scaffolding (which required permits). The resident had not been made aware of this.
The resident raised her formal complaint via telephone to the landlord on 21 January 2021 after having not had a response to her reports about the leak, damp and mould for just under a year (since February 2020). The resident was “upset and frustrated” at how long this had been going on for and said that she never received communication from the landlord or contractors about the repair. The landlord noted the resident’s report of “severe damp and mould” within the property. The resident said that she was not willing to live in such conditions.
The resident also emailed the landlord on 22 January 2021 to formally complain. She told the landlord about the damage to her blinds, carpets, paintwork, carpet and personal belongings from the damp.
On the same day, the landlord got an update from the contractor which had a summary of previous jobs raised and said that it would be attending on 16 February 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident later that same day (22 January 2021):
1. It explained that it had liaised with the contractor and that the leaking gutter repair which required scaffolding had been delayed until 16 February 2021 (due to a delay in getting the permit for scaffolding which encroaches public footpaths).
2. The crumbling brickwork at the front and rear of the property was passed to a team who aimed to get the work completed as soon as possible. They were also going to do a repair to the airbrick vent which may be a cause of damp in the property, they would be in touch with the resident to tell her when the work would commence.
3. It passed on the resident’s emails about her damaged items to the complaint team. It said that she could make a claim for disrepair but in regard to the damaged items, she would need to claim for this under her contents insurance “as it is stipulated within our tenancy agreement that (it) will not be liable for personal items damaged due to leaks, damp, flooding etc”.
On 26 January 2021 the contractor emailed the landlord following their discussion about the repairs and acknowledged that it needed to improve its communication with residents.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 1 February 2021:
1. It outlined the repair history for the guttering and noted the series of failed appointments and lack of contact to the resident throughout February 2020 – January 2021.
2. It explained that there were delays/missed appointments to carry out the repair and for some of these missed appointments it offered an explanation; lack of scaffolding (2 November 2020), continued lack of scaffolding (December 2020), lack of permit for scaffolding (January 2021) and staff sickness (December 2020).
3. It apologised for the “poor service” which the resident received and said that it provided feedback to the contractor.
4. It said that it failed to keep the resident informed or updated about appointments, so she had to continually chase it for updates without resolution.
5. It said that it understood the already frustrating situation was made worse by the added stress of repeatedly chasing the landlord and sincerely apologised for the distress and upset caused.
6. It offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill.
7. It said it would chase the scaffolding on the resident’s behalf to ensure that the permit was organised and booked in.
8. Its surveyors would attend on 16 February 2021 to ensure that the contractors were on site and the repairs completed.
On 1 February 2021 the resident’s doctor issued a letter which stated that the resident had reported that the property was damp, it had mould and water was leaking from the ceiling. It explained that the resident suffered from asthma, anxiety and depression and the current accommodation had made the asthma worse. Her anxiety and depression was also worse, and she needed to be put on medication “which could have been avoided”. The doctor’s letter further stated that “I therefore write to advise that she and her son be relocated to a more comfortable accommodation free from damp, mould and water leaks”.
On 3 and 8 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. She reported that:
1. Her son’s physical and mental health was “seriously affected”.
2. She had stress, anxiety and depression and she was taking medication for this.
3. She and her son were both asthmatic and regularly falling ill due to the condition of the property.
4. She would send a doctor’s note (this stated that she was suffering from the condition of her accommodation and reports of damp).
5. Her personal belongings were “ruined and damaged” including “expensive blinds, curtains, carpets, paintwork and wall paper”. The resident wanted a higher level of compensation to reflect this.
6. She was not satisfied about the communication and the lack of reassurance over the lessons learned from the situation.
7. In response to the landlord’s enquiry into the level of compensation which she sought (4 February 2020) the resident said that she wanted compensation for the repair (“disrepair”) and the impact on her physical and mental health and possessions.
8. She also wanted to know how the landlord would improve its service, which it had not mentioned.
9. The resident also wanted the outstanding repairs to be completed and told the landlord that no one turned up on 5 February 2021 (as arranged as a resolution in the stage one response).
The resident chased a response to her escalation request on 12 February 2021.
The landlord noted that the contractor failed to attend an appointment on 16 February 2021. The contractor told the landlord in response to the landlord’s enquiry that it had short notice of staff absence (due to Covid-19) and could not cancel the job with the resident with notice that was “longer than a day”. It is unclear why the contractor did not pass on its cancellation to the resident, irrespective of when it received notice from its staff, rather than not communicate to the resident at all.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord replied to the resident’s email and said that it had provided feedback to the contractor to highlight the failures that had occurred and explained that the resident’s feedback helps it to improve its service. It attributed the change of appointments to “lack of resources relating to Covid-19” but said that this did not excuse that the resident was not made aware of the cancellation. It asked the resident to confirm what amount of compensation she wanted.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord and contractor had a meeting. The details of this have not been seen.
On 23 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated:
1. The landlord had been rearranging appointments and cancelling them, or not even turning up to do the work or letting the resident know that they will not be attending.
2. This had been happening for a year and not occasionally.
3. Another appointment for 16 February 2021 (to replace the guttering and treat the mushrooms) had been unattended again, without notice. Three repairs were still not completed since her complaint (brickwork, guttering and mushrooms) so the landlord was not taking this seriously.
4. She emailed a doctor’s letter and asked if the landlord received this; she had anxiety and depression due to all that was happening and the property was “unfit to live in”; she and her son who is autistic should not have to be living in these “poor conditions”.
5. The resident wanted £10,000 compensation for having to live in a house with severe damp, mould and a leak with no resolution for a year. Her personal items were damaged and she calculated how much this cost her.
6. She also wanted to know how the landlord would improve its customer service and to know when the repairs would be completed.
On 4 March 2021 the scaffolding was up and the repairs which followed were booked in for March 2021, various dates are listed in the landlord’s correspondence (16, 26 and 27 March 2021).
The landlord issued its stage two (final) response on 17 March 2021.
1. It iterated the stage one summary of the unsuccessful appointments before stating that the delays were “exacerbated by a range of challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic presented” and it maintained regular updates to its customers of the impact through its website and social media.
2. It added that there was a site visit in January 2021 and works were programmed to commence on 16 March 2021. It stated that the work included a replacement of all guttering to the property, repairing the defective brickwork and associated internal finishes, this would be completed on 26 March 2021.
3. It concluded that there had been “excessive delays in the repairs being completed” and offered an apology and further compensation:
  1. It assessed the impact of the repair and disruption since 23 July 2020.
  2. It said that the overall delay was 34 weeks which was 30 weeks beyond the reasonable time to undertake the works.
  3. 5 rooms with a loss of 2 rooms (calculated as a loss of enjoyment): “£83.36 / =£16.67 per week per room 30 (weeks) X £16.67 X 2 (rooms) = £1,000.20”
  4. Inconvenience = £100.00
In its submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord said that the works were completed on 28 April 2021 instead of 27 March 2021.
The landlord’s email correspondence referred to a post inspection which it was planning to arrange (18 August 2021). The resident confirmed that the post inspection work took place. A copy of this has not been seen by the Ombudsman. The resident said that she was told that the internal walls and ceiling would dry up, however, the landlord did not address the peeling paint or the damp stains which have remained.
In respect of the impact of the repair, the resident explained that there was mould throughout the property. In the small bedroom, which was her son’s room, he did not really sleep there due to the cold, wet and damp conditions. Furthermore, his clothes, toys and items were all affected. The resident explained that in addition to being asthmatic, her son is autistic. The changes which he experienced due to the ongoing repair caused him to be anxious and affected his behaviour. Her son was also getting ill regularly because he is asthmatic.

Assessment and findings

The landlord had an obligation to carry out the repairs in a timely manner and to communicate any delays and interim measures to help the situation. It also had an obligation to keep the property fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to the repair and uphold the resident’s right of freedom from damp (Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2019).
The repairs were outstanding between February 2020 after the resident first reported the damp and mould until April 2021 when the repairs were completed. There was a delay in April 2020, after the resident had first reported the issue, due to the resident’s circumstances.
This initial delay was outside of the landlord’s control, however, the landlord’s communication and repair management following this was not reasonable. Once the resident cancelled the original appointment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to re-arrange this, rather than close the repair and wait for the resident to chase this.
The landlord was aware that the problem (the leak and damp) had not stopped, and it should have been proactive in managing its response to this in line with the relevant Covid-19 guidance. The landlord was aware of the nature of the repair and the resident’s reports about how this affected her (ie there was a leak, damp and mould all over the property and that she and her son were both asthmatic).
There was a further delay from May 2020 – April 2021. The landlord could have undertaken work from June 2020 onwards following the delays caused by Covid-19. The length of time and high volume of missed appointments which the resident ended up experiencing were not reasonable.
The inconvenience payment which the landlord offered for the overall repair was not reasonable. It offered £100. The resident experienced damp for approximately a year. The resident explained that this also affected her son’s bedroom, as he did not really sleep there due to the damp and wet conditions. She also explained that the ongoing lack of resolution (the changes) affected his behaviour and anxiety and that they were both regularly falling ill due to the mould. The Ombudsman is unable to assess claims of personal injury; the resident may seek independent advice on this. The Ombudsman has only considered the inconvenience from the impact of the outstanding repair.
The landlord did not take reasonable steps to remedy the impact of the overdue repairs and the outstanding leak and penetrating damp on the internal walls and ceilings. There has been no remedy towards things like the stains that have since remained due to the water ingress for the prolonged period of time.
The landlord accepted that it had not responded to the resident’s reports within a reasonable timeframe but its calculation of the compensation did not extend to include the impact of its failure on the resident’s belongings. It was not reasonable to ask the resident to claim from her insurer, given that the landlord was at fault for the length of time that the repair was outstanding for and the continued leak and damp. The Ombudsman is unable to calculate such damages (as this may be more suitable an insurance company to do) but it has found a failing and made an order in respect of this.
There was a lack of reasonable communication to the resident in respect of cancelled appointments. The resident experienced time and trouble chasing this, on top of the distressing experience she was having while living with the damp and the leaks.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord said that there were delays due to Covid-19. It is understood that it could not carry out repairs from the end of March – June 2020. However, on those occasions where the landlord did book in repairs and had the opportunity to carry these out or communicate with the resident about the delays, it did not do so.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the repairs and its plans with the resident at the outset and as soon as it was aware of its initial delays (eg after the job was referred back to it and after the resident chased the missing appointments). The landlord could have shared what was going on with the resident sooner, register her circumstances and concerns, and apply any relevant measures for vulnerable residents.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss any interim steps which it could take to help the resident, such considering decanting her until the repairs were completed. It did not evidence any kind of engagement in this way.
The resident’s vulnerability has not been addressed by the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the additional impact of its service failures on the resident’s personal circumstances and offered redress to reflect the distress and inconvenience as a result.
The landlord did not take reasonable steps to address the repairs, communicate about the appointment cancellations or offer interim measures to help the resident’s situation. The resident had to chase the landlord each time. At one stage, when the landlord was aware of the delays, it suggested that it would attend the property to make sure the repairs were carried out. It is not clear if this happened, and it is not clear why the landlord did not take action sooner to ensure that the contractors were managing the repairs and communicating with the resident in a reasonable way.
The landlord acknowledged its service failure and offered the resident redress as room loss (£1,000.20) and distress and inconvenience (£100). However, the offer for distress and inconvenience was not proportional to the impact of the landlord’s service failure; additional compensation is required.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

The resident’s report of damp and mould was unaddressed for approximately a year. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s statutory obligations. The landlord did not take reasonable steps to communicate with the resident on those occasions where it was affected by Covid–19, such as by rearranging the original missed appointment, managing an action plan or proactively managing the repair (such as arranging for the scaffolding as soon as it knew that repairs were required to the guttering). This resulted in unreasonable delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
The landlord’s offer of redress did not sufficiently address the overall impact and detriment which the resident experienced due to the landlord’s acknowledged service failure.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. The original offer of £1,000.20 for the loss of enjoyment in two rooms (if it has not already paid this).
2. £600 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience (to be reduced by £100 if this has already been paid).
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Refer the resident to its insurer in respect of the reports of damage to her personal belongings.
2. Provide the resident with its action plan to complete any outstanding internal decoration to any areas affected by the mould or water ingress.
3. Confirm that it will review this case with regard to its working practices / communication with its contractor
4. Discuss any current vulnerabilities with the resident and amend its records accordingly.
The landlord is requested to confirm compliance with the Ombudsman.