Onward Homes Limited (202229060)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229060

Onward Homes Limited

27 October 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.         The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background

2.             The resident is a tenant of the property. The landlord is the freeholder.

3.            The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022, regarding issues of damp and mould within her bedroom. The landlord arranged a damp inspection at the resident’s property on 18 May 2022, as well as attending to carry out replastering works. The landlord identified a potential leak from the roof on this visit and arranged a further inspection on 24 May 2022. Its operative found that the guttering around the roof was blocked and cleared this.

4.           The landlord attended on 26 May 2022, following a report by the resident of a leak on a flat roof of a bin store that was adjoining the resident’s property. The landlord was not provided with access to the property on this occasion, however, it attended again on 26 June 2022, to further inspect the roof for potential damage, and confirmed it was happy with the condition of the roof.

5.           The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2023, as the damp and mould issue had returned to the property. The landlord attended on 29 November 2022, to carry out a damp and mould inspection within the property. Following this, it arranged for thermal boarding to be installed in the bedroom of the property. The landlord attended on 25 November 2022 regarding a further issue of a leak from the roof. It made the roof safe on this appointment and then arranged further follow on works. These were rebooked for 5 January 2023.

6.            The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 December 2022, in relation to damage caused by damp in the property and the impact this was having on her. The resident advised she was seeking compensation from the landlord as a result of this. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on the same day and provided its formal response on 22 December 2022.

7.            The landlord confirmed the range of repairs that had been identified as part of the damp and mould survey. These were:

  1. Thermal boards to be fitted on a number of walls.
  2. Replastering work.
  3. Repair to the flat roof.
  4. Chemical wash to areas affected by mould.
  5. Flooring to be replaced due to damage caused by damp and mould.

8.           The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation, £400 towards the delays in the works being completed, poor communication and impact on the resident, and £50 for the delay in the complaint response being issued.

9.           The resident escalated her complaint on 4 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. The resident had raised concerns about the impact the mould was having on her daughter’s health and advised that her GP had informed her that her daughter’s cough and bad chest had been caused by the damp and mould in the property. The landlord provided a full response on 14 February 2023. The landlord apologised for delays in repair works. The landlord advised that it had identified there was further issues with the external bin store roof caused by poor weather, and it was unable to carry out internal damp works until this was resolved. The landlord confirmed that these works had been addressed and the internal works which had been due to start on 1 February 2023, would begin on 14 February 2023.

10.        The landlord explored whether it could decant the resident from the property, meaning it would move the resident out of the property on a temporary basis until the works had been completed. However, it advised the resident that it was unable to do this due to the availability of housing stock and geographical restrictions. The landlord also considered temporarily moving the resident to a hotel but had concerns that this would cause further distress to the resident. The landlord agreed that the works would carry on with the resident in situ.

11.        The landlord confirmed that initial works had not been completed to a reasonable standard, and as a result there had been further delay. The landlord confirmed on 22 May 2023, that works had been completed, a post work inspection had taken place and the resident was satisfied with the works completed.

12.        The resident advised the landlord that due to the issues of damp and mould, a number of items of furniture, including wardrobes, beds, clothing, and children’s toys had to be disposed of. The flooring in the resident’s property had also been damaged. The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s flooring as a gesture of good will and offered the resident a total of £2300 compensation for damage to personal items.

13.        On 15 August 2023, the landlord offered the resident a final offer of £2500 compensation for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused by these ongoing issues, this being inclusive of the £400 for delays, distress, and inconvenience that the landlord had offered in its stage 1 complaint response.

14.       The resident contacted this service on 21 February 2023, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. She told this service that the mould and damp within her property has affected her daughter’s health, and as a resolution to her complaint, she would like the landlord to:

a.     Issue an apology for the poor handling of her reports of damp and mould within her property.

b.     Complete all outstanding works to ensure the issue does not arise again.

c.      Ensure it maintains regular communication with her until the issue of damp and mould is resolved.

d.     Offer further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15.        The Ombudsman can understand that the damp and mould issues over a prolonged period would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on her family’s health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about hers and her child’s health.

 

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.

16.        The landlord’s customer charter sets out response times for repairs, which the landlord will aim to attend. These are:

  1. Emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours.
  2. Urgent repairs will be attended within 5 working days.
  3. Routine repairs will be attended within 20 working days.

17.        The tenancy agreement states under the landlord’s repair responsibilities that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home, including:

  1. Drains, gutters, external pipes.
  2. The roof.
  3. Outside walls.
  4. Internal walls, floors, and ceilings.

18.        The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 made several recommendations to landlords on how issues with damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks connected with this. The resident’s formal complaint was raised after this report was published, so it is relevant to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property. The Spotlight report published by this service regarding Damp and Mould states:

  1. “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.”

And

  1. “Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”

Repairs

19.        The resident first raised the issue of damp and mould in her property with the landlord on 14 April 2022. The landlord carried out an inspection to the property and identified what it believed to be the cause of damp and mould; this being blocked drains. The landlord arranged for this to be cleared and for replastering and redecorating works to be completed in the resident’s property. The landlord had attempted to carry out this work on 26 May 2022, but was not granted access to the resident’s property. This was rebooked for 26 June 2022. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, and it demonstrated it was taking the resident’s report seriously and completing works within timescales set out in its own repairs policy for non-emergency repairs.

20.        Although the landlord had responded reasonably and within its own repair timescales to carry out replastering works and clearing the residents drains in June 2022, following this there is a repeated pattern of the landlord’s works being completed outside of timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord arranged for repair works following the damp and mould survey on 29 November 2022, the landlord arranged for repair works to the roof, to be followed by the installation of thermal boarding in the property. These were raised as routine repairs, but works did not begin until 14 February 2022, 52 days after the job had been first raised. The landlord further raised an urgent repair for a mould wash on 13 December 2022, with this not being completed until 64 working days after the job was raised. There were then further delays with the landlord noting that works had not been completed to a reasonable standard, meaning it had to return to the property to make good these works.

21.        Where there can be delays to works, this Service would expect this to be clearly communicated to the resident and an explanation given for the delays. The landlord had referred to delays to works to the roof repair due to weather in its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2023, but this was over 6 weeks after the repairs had initially been delayed. The landlord should have been clearly communicating to the resident at the time and also ensuring that there was a full post work inspection at the resident’s property in the first instance. This may have prevented further delays in the works being completed which would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

22.        It was reasonable for the landlord to have considered decanting the resident from the property while it was carrying out the necessary works to resolve the damp and mould. It is clear that there had been some restrictions as to where was suitable for the resident to go due to the resident previously fleeing domestic violence, and to ensure that she was not decanted to areas near her former partner. The properties that were offered by the landlord were not suitable for this reason. The resident requested to be decanted to a hotel on 14 February 2023. The resident advised this service that the landlord had made an offer to decant her and her child into a hostel, rather than a hotel, meaning she would need to return to her property during the day. The resident advised that due to her own vulnerabilities, this would not have been a suitable environment for her and her child.

23.        It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have to have considered the decant sooner following the damp and mould survey. The landlord had failed to consider this until 9 January 2023. The landlord should have reasonably established areas that would have been suitable for the resident to be decanted to in view of her history, which the landlord was aware of. If this had been done earlier in this process, it may have prevented the landlord from making offers of properties in unsuitable areas, causing further delay and distress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made a more suitable offer of a decant such as a hotel, or a temporary short term let at another property. The landlord has not provided an adequate explanation for not offering a hotel. The landlord’s failings in arranging a decant led to the resident having to remain in the property for a period of 6 months while works were completed around her, which had caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident and her child.

24.        The resident expressed that her daughter had developed a cough and a bad chest due to the conditions of the property, which the resident advised had been confirmed by her GP. This led to the resident requesting to make a personal injury claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. The landlord had provided the resident with the information for the insurer and also advised the resident to seek legal advice regarding this matter. The landlord was correct in providing this information to the resident and making her aware of her ability to seek independent legal advice regarding these matters. Matters of insurance fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit and therefore we cannot comment on any potential liability claim any further in our investigation.

25.        There is no indication that the resident had provided the landlord with any supporting documentation from her GP regarding this matter, but also no indication the landlord had requested this information or given the resident advice regarding obtaining the supporting evidence. By requesting this, the landlord may have been able to reasonably consider the resident’s housing situation and the potential impact the property conditions had on the resident’s health and the health of her daughter. This was unreasonable from the landlord as it did not demonstrate that it was acknowledging the resident’s concerns regarding her daughter’s health, or that it was fully investigating them. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord which may have caused the resident frustration.

26.        The resident advised this service that the issue of damp and mould had returned to the property following the works carried had completed in the property to address this. While it is acknowledged that the landlord had arranged works to address the damp and mould, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that in line with its repair obligations, the landlord went far enough to take all necessary steps to remedy the issues of damp and mould within the resident’s property. This Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicating with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. It is clear from the landlord’s response to the repairs and communication with the resident that it should have done more to address this situation to ensure the issue of damp and mould did not return. As such, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property to assess its current condition relating to damp and mould. It would be reasonable for the landlord to arrange a damp and mould survey to the resident’s property and provide a schedule of works to be completed at the address, as well as any necessary works to the bin store to prevent this issue reoccurring. Depending on the extent of repairs needed, the landlord may wish to consider whether the resident needs to be decanted from the property for these works to be completed fully.

Communication.

27.        There is a repeated pattern of poor communication from the landlord throughout this complaint, which the landlord acknowledged as part of both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, acknowledging that it had fallen well short of its own service standards. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates regarding repairs and payments of compensation, with the landlord failing to acknowledge the resident’s communication within a reasonable timeframe. This also led to the resident having to contact her MP as she felt the landlord was not reasonably progressing her concerns regarding the property condition. There were a number of different departments communicating with the resident throughout this process, dealing with different aspects of the complaint. This led to inconsistency from the landlord in its response, with the resident being given different answers by different departments. This was unreasonable and caused confusion to the resident regarding how these matters were being managed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a sole point of contact throughout this process to allow her a clear path of communication with the landlord.

28.        Going forward, the landlord should ensure that the resident is given a sole point of contact for the damp and mould until this matter had been resolved to ensure there is consistency in the information she is being told to avoid further confusion.

Compensation

29.        The landlord had initially advised the resident to go through its liability insurer regarding items that had been damaged due to damp and mould in her property. The landlord advised its insurer was not considering claims of items affected by damp and mould, and due to this, the landlord decided to address this issue internally. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord. This demonstrated that the landlord was acknowledging how this had impacted the resident financially due to the lost personal belongings and took a proactive approach to address this.

30.        The landlord offered the resident a total of £2300 towards these items. The resident advised that evidence of items lost and damaged was provided to the landlord which she said showed that the value of lost items was greater than the amount offered by the landlord. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider the evidence provided by the resident regarding costs of items lost due to the damp and mould and consider whether the offer of compensation was reasonable. The landlord should confirm in writing to the resident how it has calculated the amount of compensation offered. The landlord has to be given the opportunity to explain its decision regarding the compensation amount for the lost items before the Ombudsman can take a view on whether this offer is reasonable. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received a breakdown from the resident, she can raise this matter as a new complaint through the landlord’s complaints process.

31.        The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation following the stage one complaint, £400 of this as a result of the delays in the works being completed, poor communication and impact on the resident. While it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its errors and offer compensation, the compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint does not fully reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience, the delay will have caused the resident, although the landlord’s later offer made after the end of the complaints process was more reasonable.

32.        The landlord’s final offer of £2500 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our service’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there has been a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident or the landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord and resident relationship. Therefore, the level of compensation the landlord offered reflects the significant errors and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident in this case.

33.        While this service acknowledges that the landlord had made this offer which is adequate for distress and inconvenience, it does not demonstrate that the landlord had reasonably acknowledged the resident being unable to use both bedrooms in the property for an extended period due to the damp and mould issues. This service would expect the landlord to have considered this when making its final offer of compensation to the resident. This service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy, nor was one available on the landlord’s website. This service would identify that where there had been a loss of use of a bedroom, the landlord should consider a rent rebate for a percentage of the resident’s rent during the period when part of the property had been unusable. In this instance, the resident and her daughter had been unable to use two bedrooms and were forced to sleep in the living room. This affected her day-to-day use of the living room, in addition to the two bedrooms.

34.        The Ombudsman considers a 50 percent rent rebate is reasonable for the period when the resident’s use of both bedrooms and the living room was restricted. The resident paid £88.62 weekly rent at this time. The Ombudsman calculates the refund to be awarded to the resident as follows:

  1. 50 percent of £88.62 is £44.31.
  2. £44.31 multiplied by 12 weeks is £531.72.

35.        The landlord is to pay compensation of £531.72 to the resident being unable to use the bedrooms and having limited use of the living room for 12 weeks.

36.        Furthermore, final offers of compensation were not made until after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints policy and following this service’s involvement. The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process, which was completed on 14 February 2023 and any offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this matter as it did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process. Also, the redress it offered did not include compensation for the loss of use of several rooms in the property for an extended period of time.

Determination

  1. 37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Orders

38.       The landlord is to pay the resident total compensation of £5331.72 compensation made up of:

a.     £531.72 for the resident being unable to use both bedrooms in the property and to have restricted use of the living room for a period of 12 weeks.

b.     £2300 for damage to the resident’s personal possessions. This should be deducted from the total if it has already been paid to the resident.

c.      £2500 for delays in works, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, as the landlord offered on 15 August 2023. This should be deducted from the total if this has already been paid to the resident.

39.        The landlord is to arrange for a specialist damp and mould surveyor to attend the property within 28 days of this report to investigate any steps that could be taken to address the damp and mould. If the landlord is unable to address these issues within 28 days, it should complete a schedule of works within 28 days from the date of the survey, to be shared with the resident and this service.

40.        The landlord should further discuss decant options with the resident given the extent of works that may be required.

41.        The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident for the impact these issues have had on her. A copy of this apology should be shared with this Service.

42.        The landlord to confirm that all above orders have been complied with within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

43.        The landlord to consider any additional evidence the resident provides in relation to the damage to her personal items. The landlord should explain its decision regarding any additional evidence to the resident in writing, giving reasons for its decision and a breakdown of any compensation offered.