Orbit Group Limited (202122354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122354

Orbit Group Limited

27 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

It is noted that communications have at times been submitted on the resident’s behalf by a representative. For simplicity, all communications are referred to in this document as having been made by the resident, including where they have been made on behalf of the resident.
The property is a two bedroom flat on the ground floor of a two storey block. The resident lives in the property with two children, one of whom has disabilities.
The resident reported damp and mould in early 2017. There was a visit to the property and the landlord gave the resident information on “how to avoid and manage” damp and mould.
On 8 February 2018 the landlord received a notice that it needed to confirm the resident’s application on Homechoice. This is a regional choice based lettings system.
The resident requested that he be rehomed in February 2019 due to damp issues. The landlord does not appear to have taken any action in response. The resident contacted the landlord again in September 2019 and a specialist damp survey was attempted in October 2019 but there were access issues. The resident requested the survey be undertaken in November 2019, but the landlord closed the matter without undertaking the survey.
The landlord carried out a damp survey in March 2020 following further contact from the resident in March 2020. It found mould growth and recommended further action by the landlord and that the resident undertake steps to reduce condensation.
A third party support agency sent the landlord a letter on 9 April 2021 noting that issues of damp and mould were having an impact on the family. As a low income family, this noted that the family were incurring costs to deal with the issues which were not feasible.
The resident also contacted the landlord in April and May 2021 requesting to speak to the relevant property management team. A new property manager was assigned and attended the property at some time in May 2021. It was found that there was mould and an order was raised for extractor fans to be replaced.
Following the letter from the family support service, the landlord opened a “Housing Options” case on 1 June 2021. The landlord called the resident’s representative next day. It recorded the mental health challenges the resident was experiencing. It closed the case on the basis that a landlord representative “at manager level” was dealing with the repairs and a management move was “highly unlikely as specific criteria needs to be met. Ie: fear of life”.
A landlord internal communication dated 29 June 2021 recorded that during a contractor visit the resident had been “abusive” towards him and not allowed him to undertake work to ‘make safe’, and that the job had been closed on that basis. The job in question appeared to be a minor job relating to flattening the floor and not major works. Another internal communication noted that the resident had complained about the contractor’s attitude to undertaking the work. The internal note recorded that the resident was “often frustrated” because this was one of a number of items of work.
A Major Works Referral was made by the landlord on 2 July 2021, noting that there was “damp throughout the property”, extractors did not work and plasterboard that was wet to the touch. It recorded that there was a vulnerable child in the property. On 7 July 2021 a work order was raised for an inspection to establish a full specification of works required.
An “area inspector” attended the property on 9 July 2021. He noted in an internal communication that the property type was “prone to damp” and the air flow system may need updating. He observed a drying airer in the lounge and a fish tank. He advised the resident to dry clothes outside where possible, the resident advised that the landlord had removed the drying lines. The resident told him that there had recently been a major leak and there were a number of outstanding issues. The landlord took moisture readings and found that these were “within expected rates” apart from a corner in the lounge, which could be explained by previous flooding. He concluded that he would raise a number of (unspecified) works for various repairs and to help with mould management.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord missed an appointment without notifying the resident. The resident complained to the landlord that this was the third time this had happened.
The landlord submits that the resident did not allow it access to complete major works in August 2021, however limited evidence has been provided on the circumstances of this.
A third party support agency sent the landlord an email on 6 September 2021 raising concerns on behalf of the resident about the landlord failing to provide support regarding damp and mould.
On 21 October 2021 the resident sent the landlord a list of damaged items and their value, noting that he would need to find the receipts but did not have the receipts for all items.
The landlord has provided a stage one complaint response dated 1 December 2021. It appears that the resident did not receive this until 13 January 2022, following an intervention from this Service. In the stage one complaint the landlord noted that:
1. its records indicate that the first report of damp and mould was on 1 October 2019. A request was put in for a damp survey, but this was never completed;
2. a further request was made and a damp survey was completed on 26 February 2021;
3. the survey concluded that there was mould growth and set out several recommendations. It was recommended that the landlord install fans and undertake a mould wash. It was recommended that the resident ventilate and dry out surfaces on a daily basis;
4. following a further visit by the landlord in July 2021, works were passed to the Major Works team to be completed on 21 September 2021;
5. it could not explain why there was a delay between 1 October 2019 and 22 October 2021. Whilst the COVID pandemic caused multiple issues, the works could have taken place sooner;
6. the resident had requested reimbursement for items damaged by mould and explained that it could not reimburse the full amount for the items without receipts.
. The landlord concluded the stage one complaint response by stating that, while the work was now finished, the delay was a cause of concern and there had been service failings, It offered the resident £1,345 compensation, made up of: £70 for service failings; £400 for distress and inconvenience for chasing the work; £150 because the complaint was logged in July 2021 but the landlord did not contact the resident until October 2021; £725 for the delay in completing the works 725 days outside of the agreed timescales.
On 16 January 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the issues with mould had been ongoing, he had been complaining about them since 2016 and the issues were severe and extensive. The landlord had not addressed the fundamental issues with the flat in its complaint response. He stated that the flat was “not fit for anyone to reside in” until the mould and damp was resolved. The landlord responded on 17 January 2022 advising that the complaint had been raised to stage two of its complaints procedure.
An internal landlord communication on 17 January 2022, recording the resident’s request that the complaint be escalated, noted that there had been reports of damp and mould in the building which had been “ongoing since 2009…unbeknownst to the current tenant”. It noted that there had been complaints by the previous tenant due to damp and mould. Before this previous tenant moved out, the landlord had been “taking the issue more seriously then, and even looking into moving the customer while works were done. Although they then moved out, and we haven’t done any of this, and the issue was left outstanding with a new tenant moving in with the same problems.” It noted that the resident was disputing that he was causing it, including with the fish tank. The landlord acknowledged that the damp and mould problem had been “ongoing since long before” the fish tank was installed.
On 16 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the kitchen floor had been ripped up a week ago but the contractors were reluctant to put flooring down to the cupboards because there was still mould. He noted the impact on the family, particularly given that there was a disabled child.
On 17 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord seeking clarity about the nature and timing of a number of repairs required. The resident also contacted the landlord on 21 February 2022 raising concerns about the whole of the kitchen being removed (requiring the kitchen to be entirely emptied) while the family, including a disabled child, was living in the property. He asked whether there were plans to rehouse them during the works. The resident asked who could give detailed advice on what the plan was.
On 28 February 2022 an internal communication regarding floor replacement noted that the resident had “missed previous appointments and not answered calls when we tried to contact him”. On the same day the resident contacted the landlord noting that it had advised that a new kitchen and bathroom would be installed and all water would be turned off. The resident said that he was shocked that his family, including a disabled child, was expected to live in the property. The resident advised the landlord that he was very stressed.
In an internal note on 2 March 2022 where the landlord was seeking to review and coordinate works on the property it noted that “should involvement from the Housing Ombudsman take place then there will be great implications and failings on us regarding how it has been managed so far over the past 5+ years”. The note also recorded that “there is vast damp and mould … [and] … disrepair to the property at large and belongings, furniture, and the day to day lives of the family that reside there …. The family require urgent assistance and help with a decant in order to have the property fully repaired and returned to a state which is more habitable and less inflicting on their day to day life”.
In an undated internal note written before the landlord’s stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was “living within a property of which requires [sic] a vast amount of repair”. It noted that the problem had been ongoing for over 5 years and “has caused great effect to their daily lives”. It noted that, as well as the damp and mould problems, the kitchen and bathroom were at replacement stage. It noted that the stage two complaint was outstanding and had been extended twice due to delays in the repairs. It set out that if the matter progressed to the Ombudsman in its current state of disrepair “severe failings would fall to” the landlord due to its handling of the property. It went on to note that due to the amount of repairs required it was not viable for the resident to remain in the property whilst repairs were done given the “large impact to their daily lives” and a decant would be appropriate. It further noted that “the way in which this property has been managed so far … has caused great worry, anxiety and concern for the family living there”. It set out that a booking had been made for the bathroom to be replaced on 15 March over a 7 day period which would mean the family would have no access to a bathroom and nothing had been done about a decant. The note annexed an email from the resident comprehensively setting out an extensive list of significant issues with the property.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord raised an order for a full damp and mould survey. It noted that there were a number of other issues with the property including kitchen floor issues, bathroom issues, leaks and heating issues.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2022. In this response, the landlord did not set out an analysis of the complaint, but simply set out its proposed redress. This was to offer a management move and compensation of £1970, made up of: £70 for service failings; £650 for distress and inconvenience; £150 for poor complaints handling at stage one; £1000 for the delay in investigating the works; and £100 for the delay in the stage two complaint response.
A Healthy Homes Report for the property was undertaken on 16 March 2022. It recorded that there was “visible” mould and identified a number of repairs needed.
Following a phone call, the resident confirmed by email to the landlord on 17 March 2022 that it had advised that while it could not guarantee a management move within 3 months, it was likely to be weeks rather than months as the landlord had high stock levels in the area. The landlord had confirmed in the call that the process for a managed move was straightforward. The parties agreed that there would not be any further communications about repairs except for emergencies. The calls were distressing the resident.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had informed all repair teams to stop works and that it was “delighted to have come to an agreement which suits the needs of [the resident’s family]”. An internal email of 18 March 2022 instructed works to be stopped on the basis that the landlord was “now in the process of moving this tenant and providing them with a management move out of the property.”
Internal landlord approval was given for a property move on 24 March 2022 based on the “living conditions and works required by the property multiplied by the risk faced by [the landlord] if this matter went to HOS”. The approval was given on conditions including “move within 9 weeks”. The move approval request form noted that:

“the flat itself is in a stage of complete disrepair which has extreme levels of damp and mould within the property. Considerable amount of work required and would need a long decant …. The current property is not particularly habitable and is damaging day to day life of the family who reside there…If this was to reach Ombudsman stage we would have severe mal for our handling of repairs and possibly up to 5k in compensation”.

The approval form also recorded that one of the children had disabilities.
The resident sought an update on the home move from the landlord on 28 March 2022. He advised that he would like to share information about medical evidence to support a request for a three bed property and the council had advised that the landlord needed to take steps with regard to an application being set up on Homechoice.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged in internal communications that “the property is suffering with severe damp and mould, works cannot be carried out with the customer, hence why a decant was requested”.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord advised the resident that the management move was now on the listing with the correct team who would be in touch when a suitable property was available. It provided the resident with information about other housing options by other providers.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2022, then followed up on 6 April 2022, asking that the landlord update required information on Homechoice, noting that this had been outstanding from the landlord since 2018. Subsequent internal emails from the landlord indicate uncertainty on the process for Homechoice.
At some time in April 2022 a survey recommended some damp prevention recommendations, although it appears that these were not extensive. The work was allocated as “routine priority”.
On 29 April 2022 the resident asked for an update on the home move from the landlord, including whether Homechoice had been updated.
The landlord advised the resident on 3 May 2022 that there were no suitable properties available for a move yet. It said that it had processed the application on Homechoice.
On 10 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord, further to a telephone call, that he was submitting an application for a council property near his mother.
On 13 July 2022 the resident sent an email seeking an update about the managed move. This noted concerns about relocating for new school terms for the autumn, particularly given that one of the children would need to find a suitable specialist school. He queried why he was having problems with moves to specific councils and the role which the landlord had in supporting this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022, following up a failure by the landlord to respond to the communication on 13 July 2022. The resident said that the situation was becoming increasingly difficult. There had been further damage to belongings so increased compensation would be needed for this. The resident asked for an update on the property move. The landlord responded with a holding email that day but it does not appear that it provided a substantive response.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 2 August 2022 asking for an update and noting that the flat was becoming worse. The resident also told the landlord that they were struggling to progress with properties with Homechoice because they were being reverted back to the landlord. The landlord advised that the relevant contact was out of the office until 1 August 2022 and would be asked to contact the resident on return. It does not appear that the landlord provided a substantive response to the resident.
On 2 August 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord asking for a response and stating that the flat was becoming increasingly worse. He also noted that when trying to find housing through other providers they were being referred back to the landlord.
On 7 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord complaining that there had been no communications since June and the property was now dangerous, with damp getting into electrical items. He set out further information regarding progressing the move to a three bed property and that the landlord needed to take steps on Homechoice. He stated that the family was living in a desperate situation.
On 15 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that it had promised a response in June but had still not provided one.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 13 January 2023 stating that there was a two bedroom flat becoming available but it was not clear from the notes if a one or two bedroom property was needed. It asked to speak to the resident to clarify.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 January 2023, stating that the landlord should have been aware that a three bed property was needed. The property was deteriorating rapidly. Calls and emails had been ignored.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2023 expressing frustration and disappointment about the lack of resolution of the situation and the lack of response from the landlord. He noted that the situation was more desperate as over a year had passed and the state of disrepair was worsening. The landlord responded that it was still “chasing” to change the property requirement to a three bedroom need
On 9 February 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing disappointment at the time being taken to find an alternative property, noting that he had regularly been chasing since January 2022 but was getting no replies. The landlord responded that it could “only offer as and when they become available” and advised he speak to the case owner.
On 9 February 2023 the landlord updated the resident’s need as being for a three bedroom property.
A Damp Survey Report was undertaken on 18 May 2023. The survey found mould in numerous areas and made a number of recommendations, including mould washing, checking plumbing and taking up flooring.
On the same day the landlord sent a “post stage two review” letter to the resident. The landlord:
1. noted that there were still outstanding elements to the complaint and since the stage two review it had set up a Damp and Mould Condensation Task Force;
2. acknowledged that at the second stage review it had informed the resident that a management transfer would take a matter of weeks, and on the basis of this work on the property was stopped;
3. said that it did visit the property in August 2021 to complete works but the resident refused access;
4. acknowledged that the position it originally took about the management transfer timing was incorrect;
5. acknowledged that in September 2022 the local authority amended the resident’s housing requirement to a three bed property rather than a two bed property. However, its position was that it did not receive this information and therefore continued to search for a two bed property. A three bed property became available in January 2023, but was not offered to the resident because the criteria had not been updated.
6. noted that on 21 April 2023 it had visited and assessed the property and found that the issues remained and works are required. It confirmed that undertaking the works would not revoke the resident’s management transfer search and it was committed to enabling a move. It set out its view that the works required “aren’t considered to be too intrusive” and could be undertaken while the resident remained in the property. It set out an extensive list of works to be done and said that it would be in touch to arrange a convenient time. It also said that it had instructed a building pathologist to complete an independent assessment of the property;
7. confirmed that in its stage two complaint response it had offered the resident £1,970 compensation and that in its stage one response it had told the resident that it required proof of ownership and damage in order to award compensation for damaged items. It offered the resident an additional 50% rent refund from 4 April 2022 (three weeks from the date of the original stage two complaint response) to 28 April 2023 being £1019.24, making the total compensation awarded £2,989.24.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 May 2023 seeking information on the progress of the matter.
On 5 June 2023 the landlord wrote a letter to the resident, in which it:
1. acknowledged that the works should not have been put on hold from when the managed move was offered to the current date;
2. confirmed that, as set out in the stage two response, a management move request had been upheld. However, this was not a “quick fix” because of the availability of suitable homes. It said this is why it wanted the works carried out while the resident and family remained in the property and it sought to agree a schedule;
3. apologised for the way it communicated with the family in August and said that it did not appreciate the family’s circumstances at the time. It said that it would seek to communicate more effectively with the resident to progress the works;
4. referred to the outstanding works required and responded to the resident’s queries about specific items. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about living without floor coverings. It said that this was not ideal, but is “generally safe to live with”. It said that it would arrange for furniture to be removed from room to room. It advised the resident that he would need to sign a waiver for this.
5. apologised that its communication had not “always been of the standard that we hold ourselves to” and stated that it had been making a number of changes to the way it deals with damp and mould;
6. apologised that it had not updated its system so that it contacted the resident’s representative and not him, instructed on 15 May 2023;
7. apologised for the errors in the management move;
8. apologised that it failed to refer to the resident’s request for £590 compensation for damaged flooring in its 2021. It declined to pay this as the resident would be expected to claim through home contents insurance;
9. confirmed that an error had been made in the calculation of the rent refund from 4 April 2022 until 28 April 2023 which should have been £2.989.24 rather than £1,019.24.
On 27 June 2023 the resident advised this service that there continued to be failings with the landlord’s communications about the matter. He complained that the landlord failed to provide timely and clear information on the works and failed to take into account the family’s welfare. He also noted that the landlord’s compensation offer was inaccurate and did not fully account for the full impact of its failings. The resident stated that the proposed works were inadequate or inappropriate. A particular issue is removing the flooring, particularly given that there is a disabled child in the house.
The resident asked the landlord about the work required at the property on 21 July 2023. The landlord replied on the same day. It provided a list of the works needed and said that it could not provide a detailed timing breakdown and the relevant contractor had not yet been able to attend the property. However, it said that it estimated the works would take around two weeks. The floor covering would need to be lifted for around four weeks to dry. It stated that the works are “not deemed extensive enough” to require a temporary move out. It said that it would tell the contractors to be mindful of the impact on the residents of the property whilst undertaking works. It said that it was not responsible for accidental damage to the resident’s belongings, which should be covered by contents insurance. However, it acknowledged that it was “directly at fault” it would accept compensation claims if the resident provided proof of ownership, photos of damage and the cost of the item. It noted that after the stage two complaint response a further offer of a rent refund of £2,989.24 had been made. It proposed options for dates for the work to be done in August 2023. It advised that if the resident had not made an appointment by 4 August 2023, it would seek an injunction.
The resident advised this service on 3 August 2023 that contractors had attended the property that day and the contractor advised that the work could not be completed while the family and their belongings were in situ. The resident noted that this is what they were originally told in January 2022 and why an urgent managed move had been agreed. The resident advised that no offers of alternative accommodation have been made. The resident also contacted the landlord that day advising of the discussions with the contractor that the work could not be done while the family were there and therefore could not be continued without alternative arrangements.
Throughout August 2023 the landlord has undertaken repairs on the property whilst the resident has remained in the property. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the conditions of the property and with the standard of the works.

Assessment and findings

There are four core issues within the resident’s complaint:
1. Management of repairs;
2. Handling of management move;
3. Communication levels; and
4. Handling of compensation for damaged possessions.
The Ombudsman finds that there has been failings with respect to each issue. Many of these failings have been substantial. These failings have occurred over an extensive period of time and have had an ongoing and significant detrimental impact on the resident and his family.

Management of repairs

The landlord was aware at the time that the resident moved into the property that there were problems with damp and mould in the property. In internal notes it states that these issues had been ongoing since 2009. The problems were sufficiently serious that the landlord had been looking into moving the previous tenant out whilst works were done. This did not happen as the previous tenant moved out before the works progressed.
The Ombudsman considers that it was a significant failing that the landlord failed to address the issues of damp and mould at the property – that it was clearly aware of – before the resident moved into the property. If the landlord had done so then the significant detriment which the resident experienced over a number of years could have been averted.
Once the resident had moved in, the landlord failed on multiple occasions to resolve the damp and mould issues. Key failings by the landlord include:
1. It was not responsive when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould. For example, when the resident first raised the issue in 2017 it appears that the landlord’s primary action was to give him a pamphlet, despite the history of damp and mould at the property. When the resident raised the issue in February 2019, a damp survey was not undertaken until March 2020. In 2021 it appears that the landlord only took further action after the intervention of a third party agency.
2. When it did undertake surveys, the surveys were inadequate and failed to identify the problems. There is no evidence that the lengthy history of damp and mould at the property informed the surveys undertaken after the resident’s complaints. The major works referral on 2 July 2021 noted that plasterboard was wet to touch. However, an inspection by the landlord shortly after this, while recommending some relatively minor works, failed to identify the significant works which were required. A particular failing was that the inspection concluded that the issues were in part due to a fish tank and the washing drying practices by the resident. In fact, it is clear that the issues were already apparent before the fish tank had been installed. With respect to drying practices, it appears that the landlord had itself removed external drying lines. Therefore even if internal drying practices were contributing to the mould (which is not clear), the landlord itself had removed alternative options for the resident. It appears that it was not until March 2022 that an adequate survey was done which identified the numerous works required – five years after the resident raised the issue. Because of the inadequate surveys, the sporadic works which the landlord undertook on the property during 2020/21/22 were clearly inadequate.
3. The landlord did not undertake the major works within a reasonable timeframe when they had been clearly identified. Even when the works required were identified in the March 2022 survey, the landlord did not start them until July/August 2023. This was in part because the resident requested that works not be undertaken when a management move was agreed in March 2022. However, when it became clearly apparent that the management move was not progressing, the landlord should have taken prompt and effective steps to undertake the works. The resident gave the landlord clear notice that the property was deteriorating.
4. When the landlord did undertake works the landlord failed to have regard to the impact on the resident and the need for a decant. In April 2022 works were given a “routine priority” despite the landlord being aware of the detrimental impact the condition of the property was having on the resident and his family. The landlord also refused to decant the resident at any stage. As set out above, the landlord had been contemplating decanting the previous tenant to undertake works before that tenant moved out. In its internal notes in March 2022, the landlord recorded that the property was “in a state of complete disrepair … considerable amount of work required and would need a long decant”. It stated that the resident “required urgent assistance and help with a decant”. The landlord was clearly aware that it was not feasible for the resident to continue to be in the property while works were done and there needed to be a decant. The Ombudsman notes in particular that the landlord was clearly aware that one of the resident’s children had a disability. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered a temporary decant until the resident could permanently move or the works were finished. It is not clear why the landlord has not decanted the resident. There is no evidence of a substantive analysis of the decant need. It was a significant failing by the landlord to not properly consider the decant need.
5. As a result of this failure, the resident has been living with a concrete floor in the kitchen since February 2022, which has been of particular concern due to his disabled child. The landlord’s view it was acceptable for the resident to live with concrete flooring is clearly unreasonable. The resident is also currently living in the property while extensive works are being undertaken. The landlord’s view is that it is reasonable for the resident to live with furniture being moved from room to room. However, it also considered it reasonable to require the resident to sign a disclaimer absolving it of any liability due to moving the furniture around. This is clearly unreasonable. The Ombudsman finds the impact of the failure to decant on the resident has been significant over a long period of time.

Management Transfer

The landlord gave the resident approval for a management transfer on 24 March 2022 on the basis of the “unliveable” condition of the property. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable that the landlord approved a management transfer. Indeed, the Ombudsman considers this should have been agreed significantly earlier. Unfortunately, whilst the management transfer was approved there were failings by the landlord in progressing it.
The landlord has acknowledged that it gave the resident incorrect timeframes for a transfer. It initially advised the resident that the likely timeframe was three months at the most. It clearly represented that the option of a management transfer was a quick and timely way to resolve the situation. In fact, the resident remains in the property 17 months later. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there are inevitable limitations on stock availability. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the evidence provided indicates that the landlord has taken sufficient steps to progress the move. In January 2023 – ten months after the transfer was approved – the landlord sought clarification from the resident about what type of property he was seeking. The landlord has not provided evidence that it has been taking notable steps to find a property.
The landlord was also given clear notice that one of the resident’s children is disabled and this meant that schooling options were particularly challenging. The evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged or took reasonable steps to take this into account when handling the management transfer.
It also appears that there was a failing by the landlord to undertake necessary steps to update a third party housing system which it was required to have input into so that the resident could search for housing from other providers. As a result of this, the resident may have missed out on opportunities for appropriate properties.

Communication

The evidence indicates that the resident has contacted the landlord on a number of occasions and the landlord has failed to respond, or failed to respond with an adequate response. The landlord has acknowledged this.
The landlord has failed on numerous occasions to update the resident about the nature of works required and when those works would be done. It failed to keep the resident up to date on the status of the management move. As set out above, it failed to respond on several occasions in a reasonable way regarding the reports of damp and mould. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s repeated communications about the impact of the works being undertaken while he and his family were resident.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was given notice of the resident’s health challenges, which appear to have been both mental and physical. The landlord was also given notice of the resident’s child disabilities, which (as set out above) meant that living conditions and schooling options were a particular source of stress. The resident repeatedly wrote to the landlord about concerns around this. The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to acknowledge and respond to this.
The evidence indicates that there was also a lack of ownership and coordination in managing the matter and communicating with the resident. There was no dedicated support ensuring the matter was progressed and the landlord’s duty of care to the resident was fulfilled. The Ombudsman notes that an individual member of the complaints team made laudable efforts to progress the matter, however this was not taken on board and reflected in the approach of the relevant departments of the landlord who had main responsibility.
A clear example of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident is in its letter of 21 July 2023, where it advised that if the resident had not made an appointment by 4 August 2023, it would seek an injunction. Noting the length of time that the resident had been seeking for the matter to be resolved, this was an extraordinary comment by the landlord. There had been some issues around progressing works at some stages because the resident and landlord had agreed that works would be discontinued when the management move was agreed in March 2022. It appears that the landlord did not communicate this internally, and as the management move failed to transpire it failed to communicate with the resident to consider options. There were also some issues with the resident’s health, including hospital visits, that the works needed to be managed around. Whilst there may have been a minor conflict between the resident and the landlord on one occasion when a contractor attended for works, there is no evidence that the resident was obstructive or was unreasonably preventing works going ahead.
The Ombudsman was also disappointed that the landlord was motivated in part in its approach to resolving the matter by the risk of the matter coming to this service. In notes in early 2022 the landlord noted that it was likely that if the matter came before this service there would be found to be significant failings and it would be required to pay significant compensation. One of the reasons the landlord cited for approving a property move on was that the problems with the “living conditions and works required by the property [was] multiplied by the risk faced by [the landlord] if this matter went to HOS”.
Whilst the Ombudsman of course expects landlords to be guided by the approach it takes when deciding what is a fair and reasonable approach, this is different to factoring in the likelihood of a complaint coming to this service in determining the appropriate outcome for an individual case. A management transfer request should be decided on what is fair and reasonable in the individual circumstances of the case. There are many reasons why a resident may or may not bring a case to this service, and this should not impact on the landlord’s treatment of different residents. Further, if a landlord identifies that there is a very strong likelihood that this service will find significant failings and require substantial compensation, this should inform the landlord to alter its approach. The landlord in this case failed to give appropriate importance to its analysis that its handling of the matter was not in line with the approach this service takes.

Damaged Items

The resident’s position is that a number of possessions have been damaged by the damp and mould and the landlord has failed to provide compensation for this.
The resident sent the landlord a list of damaged items, including carpet, children’s furniture and toys and clothing on 21 October 2021. The items had a total value of £1,995. The landlord did not respond directly to the email but referred to it in its stage one complaint response on 1 December 2021. It stated that it could not reimburse the full amount without receipts. In its “post stage two review” letter of 18 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had required proof of damage and ownership to pay compensation for damaged items. In a letter of 5 June 2023 the landlord referred to the resident’s claim for compensation of £590 for damage to flooring. It said that it would not pay this as the resident should claim through home contents insurance. On 21 July 2023 the landlord then said that it would pay compensation where it was “directly at fault” if the resident provided sufficient evidence.
The landlord’s communication about the issue of compensation for damaged items has clearly been inadequate. It has failed to respond in a timely manner and has been inconsistent in setting out its position.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that in some circumstances it may indeed be appropriate for the landlord to decline to make such payments and refer a resident to making a claim on contents insurance. However, in this particular case, the landlord has taken the position that it will pay compensation where the damage is “directly its fault”. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to implement this position in a reasonable manner.
The issue is therefore whether the landlord has been reasonable in implementing its position that it will pay compensation for damage that is “directly its fault”. Given the clear and sustained failings to deal with the damp and mould over an extensive period of time, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to conclude that there was notable damage to the resident’s property from damp and mould which can be considered to be the “fault” of the landlord. It is, in principle, reasonable for the landlord to then require some evidence from the resident. Requiring photos of damage is in principle reasonable. However, given the length of time the damage has occurred over, it is not reasonable for the landlord to require the resident to have photographic evidence of all damage. It is also not reasonable to expect the resident to be able to provide proof of ownership of all items and proof of the cost, given both the length of time that has passed and the nature of some of the items (eg children’s books and toys).
The items that the resident has claimed for are all items that one would expect the resident to have and which would be damaged by damp and mould. There are no unusual items or excessive values claimed that may suggest that the resident is not making a claim in good faith. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it unreasonable for the landlord to impose the proposed evidentiary requirements as a condition for reasonable compensation
In the particular circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident a lump sum as a reasonable estimate of the appropriate compensation for the direct loss caused by the landlord’s failure to deal with the damp and mould. Noting that since he wrote to the landlord in October 2021, in further correspondence the resident has referred to damages to additional items (including flooring, which is a high cost item), the Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £3,000 within four weeks of the date of this determination as compensation for damaged items.

Redress

In summary, and as anticipated by the landlord itself, taking together the numerous failings set out above, the Ombudsman finds that there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the property.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the compensation which the landlord has offered. However, given the extent of the failings and the magnitude of the detriment to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider this compensation is adequate taking into account the number of failings, the period of time over which they occurred and the significant detrimental impact on the resident and his family.
In addition to the compensation for damaged items set out above, the Ombudsman also considers it appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for the significant distress and inconvenience experienced over a number of years and in recognition of the time and trouble the resident has spent in pursuing matters. The distress caused by the condition of the property itself was particularly exacerbated by the communication failings, the failing to decant the resident and the failing to adequately acknowledge and account for the impact on the resident’s disabled child. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £3,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £1,000 for time and trouble. The landlord must pay this within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The Ombudsman also requires that the landlord pay compensation to the resident for the loss of the full and proper use of the property due to the damp and mould and the works because of it. Whilst it appears that the resident continued to be able to use all the rooms in the property (except when major works were being done in a room), the enjoyment of use was significantly compromised. This became worse over time. The resident requested to be rehomed in February 2019 and the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for compensation to reflect the length of period from this time until the date of this determination. The Ombudsman therefore requires that the landlord pay the resident £5,700 compensation for the compromised enjoyment of the property over this extensive period. This reflects an amount of £100 per month over a period of 57 months. The landlord must pay this within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould.

Reasons

The Ombudsman considers that it was a significant failing that the landlord failed to address the issues of damp and mould at the property – that it was clearly aware of – before the resident moved into the property. Once the resident had moved in, the landlord:
1. was not responsive when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould;
2. when it did undertake surveys, there were inadequate and failed to identify the problems;
3. when major works were identified, failed to undertake them in a reasonable timeframe;
4. failed to have regard to the impact on the resident and the need for a decant.
The landlord took too long to approve a management transfer, gave the resident unrealistic timeframe for a transfer and has failed to take reasonable steps to find an alternative property.
The landlord has failed to keep the resident updated and has not responded to reasonable queries from the resident on a number of occasions. There was also a lack of ownership and coordination in managing the matter and communicating with the resident
The Ombudsman is disappointed that the landlord was motivated in part in its approach to resolving the matter by the risk of the matter coming to this service.
The landlord has taken the position that it will pay compensation where the damage is “directly its fault” and the Ombudsman would therefore expect the landlord to implement this position in a reasonable manner. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it unreasonable for the landlord to impose the proposed evidentiary requirements as a condition for reasonable compensation.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the customer the following amounts within four weeks of the date of this determination. Any compensation amounts which the landlord has already paid may be deducted from this.
1. £3,000 as compensation for damaged items;
2. £3,000 as compensation for distress and inconvenience;
3. £1,000 as compensation for time and trouble;
4. £5,700 compensation for the compromised enjoyment of the property.
The Ombudsman requires that the Chief Executive Officer of the landlord provide a written apology to the resident within four dates of the date of this determination.
The Ombudsman requires that, if the resident has not accepted an offer of a property at the time of this determination and/or the works remain outstanding, the landlord should make him a direct offer of a suitable property within twelve weeks of the date of this determination. This offer should be made in line with its usual criteria for a management transfer. If there is not available housing stock for this, the landlord must offer the resident a decant to suitable temporary accommodation, taking into account the needs of the resident and his family. If the landlord is unable to comply with this order for unavoidable reasons, the landlord must consider the matter of further compensation (reflecting the approach the Ombudsman has taken to compensation in this determination) and advise us of this at the twelve week point at the latest.
As well as actively seeking a property to offer the resident as a management transfer, the landlord should review the resident’s bidding history on the choice based lettings system and ensure that he is proactively bidding on as many properties as possible. This review may include a discussion with him about expanding his preferred areas to live in.
The landlord should update this service and the resident at four weekly intervals until he is rehoused, either by a management transfer direct offer or by him successfully bidding for a property.
The Ombudsman requires that the landlord assign a single point of contact to communicate with the resident about the transfer within two weeks of the date of this determination.
The Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a “Learning from this case review” and provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of identified learnings and proposed changes within eight weeks of the date of this determination.
This Service notes that there were references to previous tenants being affected and also other reports within the same building. The landlord should now review current repair requests and complaints from any other residents in the block who were also affected by the issues to ensure that all issues have been resolved, and should provide confirmation that this review has been completed to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should satisfy itself that appropriate action has been taken to address the damp and mould when the property becomes vacant prior to reletting and provide confirmation of this to the Ombudsman.