Orbit Housing Association Limited (201909362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909362

Orbit Housing Association Limited

29 March 2022

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 has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould within her property and the subsequent damage it has caused.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedure

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms its statutory obligation to “ensure that [it keeps in good repair] the structure and exterior of the building including the walls, stairs, roof, external doors and windows”.
The landlord’s Complaints Procedure (Sept 2016 – May 2020) states that with repairs complaints, its Resolution Team and then an Area Maintenance Manager should first propose solutions to the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord should register a formal complaint. The landlord then follows a two-stage complaints procedure (Investigation and Review) where it aims to send the complaint response within 10 working days at each stage. The two–stage Complaints Procedure is confirmed by subsequent versions of the procedure.
The Complaints Procedure states that:
1. “Repair complaints that relate to outstanding repairs should be kept open at Investigation until all issues are resolved, and only once all the repairs from the original complaint are completed should the final full response letter be sent. If this is the case then the complaint handler must regularly update the complainant”.
2. On investigating the complaint, if there hasn’t been a service failure provide a full account to the complainant in writing”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy and Procedure (September 2016 – May 2020), then subsequent updated policy and procedure allows the landlord to make discretionary offers of compensation for service failure where “the standard of service …is considerably below the standard that could be reasonably expected” and that “Compensation should be awarded in line with the compensation calculator”. The calculator states it can compensate for “service failure in general” to reflect “excessive inconvenience, stress”.
The Compensation Procedure notes that “it is customers’ responsibility to have home contents insurance and we expect them to claim on this insurance where it is appropriate to do so”. However, the compensation calculator allows the landlord to consider claims for “Damage to property / decorations/personal injury”, consider whether the damage is the result of the landlord’s actions and decide whether to settle directly with the resident or refer to its insurers. The procedure also states that “If the damage to a customer’s property or decorations was caused as a direct result of something that Orbit staff or their contractors should have done but didn’t, did incorrectly or should not have done the customer should be advised to put their claim in writing within one month of any incident”.
The landlord’s updated Compensation Policy dated June 2020 reiterates that “it is the customer’s responsibility to have home contents insurance and we expect them to claim on this insurance where it is appropriate to do so” and that residents should claim for damaged items within one month of the incident that allegedly caused the damage.

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her property is a two-bed house.
The resident has advised this Service that her property has had problems of damp and mould and “This damage was done in October / November 2018, with ongoing work that has still not been completed with mould all under wallpapers from persistent water/condensation damage”.
The resident has also advised this Service that some concrete dropped out of roof of her porch; however, the roofer broke the undercloak “while throwing concrete everywhere”. She states that she was left for two months with a hole in the roof, despite her ringing the landlord, resulting in a mice infestation. When the landlord sent someone to fix the roof, it carried out a temporary repair with expandable foam enabling her to call Environmental Health in to exterminate the mice.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that on 21 December 2018, the resident escalated a complaint noting:
1. New doors installed the previous year had condensation.
2. The hallway had always been freezing and now there was mould up a wall and on shoes which the resident had to dispose of. She wanted compensation of £700 for her shoes and shoe storage box.
3. A contractor drilled into the affected wall to find that there was no insulation.
4. Despite wiping everything down there was mould on ceilings.
The landlord’s internal investigation of the complaint shows that it was aware of “ongoing damp and condensation” including damp on a bedroom wall which had worsened due to a crack. The landlord also noted that the contractor had attended “several times” and another job had been raised.
On 29 January 2019 the landlord closed the resident’s complaint after a damp survey was booked with the contractor. Its internal notes stated that “major repairs were raised from recommendation for installation of extractor fan to lounge, kitchen and bathroom”.
On 26 February 2019 the landlord advised that it had received the damp survey report and raised a job for the contractor to carry out the recommendations.
The resident has advised this Service that the “Damp survey highlighted I had wrong and not enough attic insulation, they put in an additional 2 tonnes without taking out previous 4 tonnes of yellow and pink insulation. This caused massive damp patches all over my ceiling that still now I have to bleach as black all around room”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence notes that on 10 June 2019 it installed extractor fans.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that resident on 24 June 2019 pursued her complaint advising the landlord that:
1. A number of appointments had been missed and that there was damp and condensation, especially to her windows, despite following advice to open windows and trickle vents and use the extractor fans.
2. She was concerned about the possible return of a mice infestation through a cavity in the porch as the contractor had only carried out a temporary fix, which was now crumbling away, after breaking the underclock. She noted that mice had destroyed sentimental items in the attic.
3. The original problems with the hallway remained as there was no insulation in the walls and a wall still had unfilled holes after drilling.
4. Mould had damaged her shoes, shoe storing unit and other possessions.
5. Three times as much insulation as needed had been installed in the attic which had caused damp patches in the bedroom.
6. A decision to install air vent tile in roof was rescinded, and the resident had been told on 3 June 2020 the surveyor would visit her to discuss the outstanding issues.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that on 11 July 2019, it understood from the resident’s complaint that “the outstanding works are for the porch, mice infestations in the loft and insulation to the walls. These jobs were closed down in order to be reraised once the damp survey has been carried out”. However, on 18 July 2019 the contractor denied that there were works as it had carried out all the jobs on the job order including insulating the loft area. The contractor advised that it did not insulate the walls as this required specialist equipment, and this had never been done in neighbouring properties. The contractor understood the damp was caused by lifestyle and advised that the landlord that if it wanted specific works to be completed, it would need to investigate and raise the works accordingly.
A surveyor agreed to attend the resident’s property on 5 August 2019 to inspect for damp and mould. This Service has not received records to confirm if this visit occurred or if so, what the outcome was.
On 15 August 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It noted that a member of staff had reported back, after meeting the resident at her property, that all work had been completed and that the property was in good condition. However, it was agreed that the resident would notify it if mould returned during the winter months. The landlord also noted that work had been completed in respect of mice gaining access to the property via the porch, but that the resident could phone if this was not the case.
The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that works were not completed within given timescales. It apologised for the inconvenience, offered compensation of £100 and stated it would feed back to the contractor to ensure that similar issues did not arise in the future. The landlord also advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint within 20 days.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord advised the resident to contact this Service about her complaint, although it would contact the roofing contractor about an outstanding job. The resident contacted this Service on the same day.
On 17 December 2019 the resident informed this Service that a surveyor had visited her on 13 November 2019 and advised:
1. Cleaning off mould and wiping condensation was “normal cleaning”.
2. The works from the damp survey were not completed insofar as there was no new air ducting, no vent tile and the wrong fan was fitted in the kitchen. She had been advised by the landlord in April 2019 that it would not be completing these jobs.
3. The sub-contractor would contact her about an outstanding roof job.
However, as she heard nothing, she chased the landlord up what stated that the surveyors who had inspected in April 2019 would visit her on 18 December 2019. The resident further stated that:
1. She remained unhappy about the damage to the undercloak which led to mice running around wall cavities for two months and that the emergency fix was crumbling away.
2. The landlord had denied that insulation was needed in the porch despite it was colder than other parts of the house.
3. The property was still damp.
4. Insulation had been taken out, but water/condensation had run down the wall, and nothing was done to help her redecorate.
The resident has advised this Service that the surveyors returned on 18 December 2019 and listed works but as of 22 January 2020, no works had been completed, and the issues of the condensation/damp/mould and “crumbling bodged roof” remained. She advised that she was given a spray treatment to carry out herself, but this did not help.
On 4 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that no jobs or appointments had been made since the visits of November and December 2019.
On 20 April 2020, this Service advised the resident to escalate her complaint but that we had already asked landlord to respond within three weeks. The resident reiterated that damage in her property had not been made good, a dehumidifier had made no difference, a window was coming away from wall, and that she was told by a surveyor to clean off mould.
On 22 May 2020 then on 20 July 2020 the resident advised this Service that she had not received the final complaint response.
On 29 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that someone visited her on Monday but did not know what they were doing and that she had not heard back since. She stated that she was awaiting the landlord’s final offer for damaged possessions and reiterated that water was running down her front room window and there was a draft due to badly installed trickle vents. The landlord responded on 30 July 2020 stating that it would respond to her compensation request and had asked its contractor to book an appointment. On 7 August 2020, the resident advised that she had not heard from the contractor about the appointment.
On 29 July 2020 this Service chased up the landlord about the Stage 2 complaint response.
On 10 August 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 review response. It noted that the meeting referred to in the original complaint response at the resident’s property had confirmed that all the issues raised had been resolved and the property was in good condition. This included work to prevent mice entering through the porch. The landlord noted that it had awarded the resident £100 but declined to cover the cost of items damaged after the mice entered due to a lack of supporting evidence, based on its initial findings. It noted that it advised tenants to take out contents insurance to cover incidents. The response was not received by resident at the time.
On 20 October 2020 this Service contacted the landlord again to chase up the Stage 2 complaint response. The landlord agreed to respond by 27 October 2020.
In March 2021 the resident received the response of 10 August 2020. On 31 March 2021 the resident advised this Service that she remained dissatisfied as:
1. The landlord did not provide gift vouchers.
2. Excess insulation had caused damp problems.
3. She kept finding issues with her windows, including damp and mould around her bedroom windows.
4. The landlord had not addressed the issue of mice entering her property for two months.
On 4 November 2021 and 22 December 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that she remained dissatisfied stating that “half the work had not and has still not been completed” and reiterating her concerns that:
1. The porch roof was repaired with expanding foam.
2. There was air ducting in straight lines with no joins.
3. There was no insulation in the hallway/porch where the original damp issue was and where she continued to experience damage to her shoes. It remained “impossible” to heat her property and ensure that the thermostat worked efficiently.
4. She still had to bleach damp patches in her ceiling that was caused by the incorrect loft insulation works.
The resident stated that when she had reported that the damp had worsened in her bedroom, growing on more shoes and her bed, the landlord investigated round the bedroom window. It found that most of damp was water running down walls caused by excess insulation in the attic. The resident added that the landlord had now fitted the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen “that should have been installed in 2019” and had now carried out the porch roof repair “properly”; however, 12 vents that had been installed in the roof had not improved the damp and mould. The resident stated that, generally, jobs from the damp survey was not completed or delayed, and issues were made worse from the works that were carried out.

Assessment and findings

No contemporaneous records have been provided to this Service to confirm when the resident first reported damp, the action taken by the landlord at the time and when she first complained. However, its internal correspondence following the resident’s complaint of 21 December 2018 confirm that by then, there had been several visits at which damp had been confirmed and that she had raised a complaint with the landlord.
The landlord also has not provided evidence of the damp survey referred to 26 February 2019. The resident has advised this Service that the survey did take place. Nonetheless, as the survey entailed a technical assessment of the issues reported by the resident to inform what action should take place, it is a significant omission that the landlord has not been able to provide this.
The resident outlined the issues she was unhappy about in her complaint of 21 December 2018 and email of 24 June 2019. The landlord’s investigations focussed on the works that it understood the resident was requesting. However, the fact that the contractor advised that it had carried out all works previously identified indicates that the landlord failed to maintain oversight of the resident’s complaint and the substantive works identified, causing different understandings of the progress and status of the complaint and works. In fact, the contractor by referring to “lifestyle” inferred blame on the resident and an associated onus on her to resolve the damp. This statement was unsupported and is inconsistent with this Service’s view that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and should be on the front foot in identifying potential issues and carrying out effective diagnosis.
In its subsequent complaint response of 15 August 2019, the landlord concluded that all works had been completed and the property was in a good condition. However, the landlord has provided no contemporaneous evidence of the meeting at the resident’s property that it relied on in this response. There is also no evidence to confirm that all the works which it stated were completed in order to remedy the mould and prevent mice entry were completed. Indeed, it is neither clear from the landlord’s repair records nor the complaint response what these works were and when they were raised.
Therefore, even though the landlord in the complaint response accepted there had been some delay, there is no evidence that it had assessed the extent and reasons of the delay and impact. Also, over and above ongoing concerns about damp, mould and condensation, the resident raised specific concerns about missed appointments, the quality of works to the porch as well as holes and a lack of insulation there, loft insulation works exacerbating damp issues, a change to the works originally identified and damage to her possessions. However, the landlord did not consider these issues. This is at variance to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code which summarised good practice in complaint handling and states, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. Correspondingly, the compensation offer was also not in line with the Code which also states, “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”.
After the complaint response, the resident continued to report damp and contended that there were outstanding works including works from the damp survey. She has advised that as a consequence there were further surveyor visits in November and December 2019, at which the landlord accepted further works. Again, the landlord has not provided records of the inspections and the outcome, or of any communication with the resident about the issues she was pursuing. This indicated that it failed to keep an audit trail of its actions and decision in respect of the resident’s complaint and works at this time.
The resident continued to pursue the landlord throughout 2020, directly and through this Service for what she understood to be outstanding works and her related formal complaint response. This included a claim for damaged possessions. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a further inspection or further works before sending its final complaint response on 10 August 2020. This response had the same shortcomings as the earlier response insofar as the landlord concluded that all issues had been resolved and the property was in good condition without specifying when the meeting occurred that it had based its decision on, did not make clear exactly what works it had completed and when, and did not address other issues raised by the resident. The response also failed to acknowledge the resident’s further reports since the first complaint response which included new repairs to her windows and trickle vents.
The landlord in line with its Compensation Policy noted that the resident could have taken out contents insurance to cover damaged items. However, the policy states too that the landlord should not simply rely on a resident having insurance but that it had a responsibility to assess whether the damage resulted from its actions or omissions. In the response of 10 August 2020, the landlord only stated that it would not compensate for items damaged by mice and did not address items that the resident had advised were previously damaged by mould. It therefore did not assess all aspects of her claim. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had assessed the claim in meaningful way simply stating in a general way that there was no “supporting evidence”, without commenting on its actions, the timelines or the items that had been damaged.
The resident did not receive the Stage 2 response of 10 August 2021 response at the time. There was a further significant delay of several months after this Service asked the landlord on 20 October 2020 to send the response with the resident not receiving the response until March 2021. In fact, the landlord by agreeing to a deadline of 27 October 2021, instead of sending the response which had already been written, indicates a lack of tracking of the complaint.
The resident’s comments to this Service since March 2021 indicate that there has been further contact between her and the landlord, and that further works have been carried out, included the installations of extractor fans and a further, more durable repair to the porch roof. However, she has advised of ongoing damp and mould problems including damp resulting from the “incorrect” insulation works. The landlord has not provided repairs records for this period, further indicating failings in its record keeping.
The lack of repair records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, this report has already noted that the complaint responses sent to the resident did not have sufficient detail and did not justify the decisions reached on the complaint. Further failings in the landlord’s complaint handling have been identified. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident originally submitted her complaint and when the landlord acknowledged and logged it – the correspondence of 21 December 2018 refers to an “escalated” complaint. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint in February 2019 without writing to her. This was inappropriate and inconsistent with the Complaint Handling Code which states: “At the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the following:
1. the complaint stage.
2. the outcome of the complaint.
3. the reasons for any decisions made.
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. details of any outstanding actions.
6. details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
When sending the written complaint response of 15 August 2019, the landlord provided contradictory advice to the resident about the status of her complaint insofar it advised her that she could escalate the complaint whilst on 17 October 2019, it referred her to this Service. This caused an unnecessary delay in the complaints process as the resident contacted this Service which advised her to escalate her complaint within the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord then delayed in sending the review response to the resident’s complaint after being asked to by this Service and her in April 2020, not meeting the timeframe requested. There was a further delay by the landlord in sending the response of 10 August 2020, after it was informed that the resident did not receive it at the time. These delays exacerbated the inconvenience caused to the resident from the repair issues she reported and increased the time and trouble she experienced in pursuing her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould within her property and the subsequent damage it has caused.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has provided no contemporaneous evidence of the damp survey that was carried out and of the works completed in order to remedy the mould and prevent mice entry were indeed completed. After the resident made further reports of damp after the complaint response of August 2019, there is no evidence that the landlord kept records of further inspections and the outcome, or of any communication with the resident. The landlord did not clearly respond to other specific repair concerns by the resident such as the quality of works to the porch, holes and the lack of insulation in the porch, loft insulation works exacerbating damp issues and a change to the works originally identified and damage to her property.
Generally, the landlord failed to maintain oversight of the resident’s complaint and the substantive works identified causing different understandings of the progress and status of the complaint and the works. Ultimately, there are no records of the works completed and inspections that the landlord relied in concluding that all works had been completed and the property was in a good condition.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, its complaint responses did not have sufficient detail and did not justify the decisions reached on the complaint. There were further failings in that the landlord did not maintain a record of when it logged the complaint, closed the complaint in February 2019 without writing to the resident, provided contradictory advice about escalating the complaint and, generally, delayed in dealing with the complaint.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £400 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Pay the resident £150 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident explaining the outcome of the damp survey and other inspections carried out, what works were completed as a result, whether or not it confirms its position that the resident’s property is in good condition and whether there are any outstanding works, with timeframes for completion. If the landlord wishes to carry out another inspection before responding, it should write to the resident within two weeks of the inspection.

Within the next six weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review the failings in complaint handling identified in this case including why the complaint was not investigated with consideration given to relevant records and why not all points of complaint were addressed.
2. Confirm to the Ombudsman whether action has already been taken to ensure these failings are not repeated, and;
3. If not, confirm to the Ombudsman what further action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failings happening again. This may include training staff in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
4. Review why appropriate repair records could not be provided in this case. The landlord should consider whether improvements in its repairs record keeping and/or record retrieval are required and, if so, how these will be achieved. The outcome of the landlord’s consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman.