Peabody Trust (202120748)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120748

Peabody Trust

24 February 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his previous property.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The property is a one bedroom flat on the top floor of a tower block. The block was part of a regeneration area and had been earmarked for demolition by the landlord. The resident had an affordable shorthold tenancy at the property, which began on 24 December 2012 and was due to be decanted along with other residents in the block as part of the regeneration scheme. The resident was transferred to an alternative property by the landlord and started his new tenancy on 22 December 2021.
The resident has a young child and previously had arrangements in place for the child to visit him at the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2020 about mould on the bedroom wall and part of the ceiling. The landlord raised a works order to carry out a mould wash and its contractor attended on 10 November 2020 to carry out the work. However, the contractor was unable to carry out the mould wash because it concluded that the walls were too wet and therefore a dehumidifier was needed to dry the area before any further work could be done. The contractor supplied the dehumidifier on 10 November 2020 and returned on 17 November 2020 to review the position. However, the contractor reported that it was unable to gain access and the landlord’s repairs log indicates that the contractor attempted to contact the resident on various occasions after this.
The contractor attended the property on 11 December 2020 and completed a mould wash throughout the home on walls, ceilings and windows. The contractor also removed the dehumidifier on this date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 December 2020 to report further mould and condensation problems and, in response, the contractor made an appointment to attend the property on 10 February 2021.
On 12 January 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to report damp and mould in the property, which she said was being exacerbated by a roof leak. The MP said she was concerned about the impact on the resident’s young child. The resident then contacted the landlord on 19 January 2021 to say that although a mould wash had previously been carried out, the mould had returned. In response, the landlord confirmed that it had raised repair jobs to check the roof for a possible leak and for a contractor to carry out a further mould wash.
The landlord replied to the resident’s MP on 27 January 2021 to confirm that the mould wash and roofing jobs had been raised. The MP again wrote to the landlord on 29 January 2021 to enquire about rent liability for the period between November to December 2020 when the resident had temporarily left the property due to reports of damp and mould and works that were being carried out in the property. The landlord replied to the MP on 15 February 2021 to say that it had not agreed for the resident to temporarily vacate the property and therefore the resident remained liable for the rent payments.
The roof inspection took place on 16 February 2021 (the contractor reported that it had been delayed due to poor weather). The landlord wrote to the resident on the following day to say that the contractor had inspected the roof and found no leaks. However, following a further exchange of emails between the landlord and the resident on 17 and 18 February 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out further tests on the roof to identify any leaks. Again, the contractor reported delays in carrying out the tests because of poor weather, but on 26 February 2021 it carried out a dye test on the roof and advised the landlord that the resident should now wait for rain to see if the dye comes through to the property. The contractor reported to the landlord that it had seen signs of condensation in the property.
On 8 March 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that he had not seen any indications of the dye coming through to the property and that the damp and mould were getting worse. The landlord agreed to raise a new order to “tackle the damp and mould”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 March 2021 to say it had escalated the resident’s complaint to a formal stage one complaint as the repairs had not been completed within 60 days. There were exchanges of emails between the landlord and contractor during March 2021, in which the landlord acknowledged that videos from the resident “show a significant amount of black mould on walls and ceilings throughout his home”.
The landlord sent an interim stage one response to the resident on 29 March 2021 to say that it was awaiting input from its surveying team. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that one of the contractor’s supervisors visited the property on 30 March 2021 and took photos.
On 10 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that his health was being affected by the damp. The landlord and resident then exchanged further emails during May 2021 about a start date for the internal repairs. The resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that he had broken appointments with the contractor.
The landlord sent its stage one letter on 15 June 2021, in which it stated:
1. A surveyor had visited on 12 April 2021 and concluded that the most significant problems causing the mould were a leak from the roof and “several of [the resident’s] lifestyle choices”;
2. The surveyor had found that the resident had not been using the central heating, the window vents were closed and the automatic condensation fan in the kitchen had been switched off;
3. The surveyor did not feel that the property was uninhabitable, but said the mould needed to be treated;
4. A coating had been applied by a contractor to the roof on 22 April 2021 in order to ensure it was watertight;
5. A contractor had started work in the property on 24 May 2021 and completed the work on 3 June 2021 to renew a kitchen base unit and a wall unit, redecorate the kitchen ceiling, renew the worktop, skim the plaster and treat/paint the walls affected by mould;
6. The landlord offered the resident £462 in compensation, which consisted of £62 for using a dehumidifier from 10 November 2020 to 11 December 2020, £50 for poor complaint handling as the complaint had been open for at least 60 days, and £350 for time and trouble;
The resident replied on 25 June 2021 to say that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of £462 and instead wanted £2,500 as it had taken five months to carry out the repairs.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord sent a ‘revised response’ to the stage one complaint, in which it stated:
1. The mould had been “triggered” by a roof leak, which the resident had reported on 19 January 2021;
2. The landlord repeated that there was a lack of ventilation/air-flow because the resident had not been using the window vents or the automatic fan in the kitchen and inadequate heating as the central heating was not in use;
3. There had been a delay of eight days in the contractor gaining access to the property in November 2020, and the contractor had experienced other delays;
4. The landlord acknowledged that the roof repair had been delayed by 33 days and therefore the landlord had offered compensation using its ‘extensive disruption scale’;
5. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £562, which was comprised of £62 for the use of the dehumidifier, £100 for poor complaint handling and £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord sent a further response to the resident’s complaint and stated that it had reviewed the repair history for the property. It confirmed the resident’s contact on 15 October 2020 and the subsequent events in November and December 2020, which resulted in the contractor supplying the dehumidifier and completing a mould wash on 11 December 2020. The landlord acknowledged that the mould issue was reoccurring and therefore arranged for one of the contractor’s supervisors to inspect the property on 30 March 2021. It confirmed that it would discuss the supervisor’s findings with its duty surveyor to decide on the next steps;
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 July 2021 to say that he was unhappy with the offer of compensation and therefore wanted his complaint to be escalated.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 9 and 14 July 2021 and apologised for the delay in assigning the case for review.
On 27 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response. The main points included in the response were:
1. The landlord concluded that the offer of compensation “was fair and reasonable as was the stage one investigation and response”;
2. A rent rebate would not be offered as the landlord had not received advice from its surveyors that one or more rooms were unusable or uninhabitable;
3. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced inconvenience and delays, but the landlord had carried out inspections and damp and mould treatments and some of the delays were reportedly caused by the resident;
4. The landlord’s contractor had been one of the worst affected by the pandemic and had difficulty with staff levels and supply lines and therefore the landlord would employ a team of repairs staff to monitor all repairs;
5. The landlord accepted there were delays in progressing the complaint at stage two of the process due to a significant increase in review cases and therefore it had recruited an additional staff member;
6. The landlord offered an additional £50 compensation for the complaint handling at stage two and this brought the total offer of compensation to £612.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2021 to advise that the damp problem had returned, despite opening the windows. He repeated that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. He also said he wanted to be moved out of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2021 to say that he had accepted the offer of compensation and that it should be paid into his rent account as soon as possible. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2021 to say that the damp is still a problem and that he had to dispose of his bed and some clothes because they were damaged by the damp. He enclosed photos and videos to show that the damp had returned.
The landlord replied on the same day and apologised for the delay. It confirmed that the compensation would be added to the rent account shortly and that a member of its surveying team would contact the resident. The landlord confirmed on 1 November 2021 that a surveyor would visit the property on 4 November 2021.
There was further correspondence between the landlord and tenant in November 2021, in which the resident reiterated the need for him to move as soon as possible and the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that the inspection had taken place on 4 November 2021. The surveyor’s report stated that there were condensation droplets on the ceiling and walls in the bedroom, staining to the lounge ceiling and condensation on the kitchen ceiling. The report concluded that the construction of the property had possibly contributed to the condensation issues, i.e. the property was on the top floor of a tower block and was “exposed to the elements on three sides and through a flat roof” without insulated exterior wall panels. The surveyor later confirmed that no feasible repairs could be undertaken to deal with the lack of insulation.
Based on the surveyor’s report, the landlord accepted that the resident should be prioritised for an early move. An internal email dated 17 December 2021 from the landlord confirmed that the resident had accepted an alternative property. The resident moved out of the property shortly afterwards and began his new tenancy on 22 December 2021.
On 24 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to cover events that had occurred after its stage two response was sent. The landlord confirmed that this letter was its final complaint response and the main points within the letter were:
1. The landlord outlined the findings from the surveyor’s report following his inspection on 4 November 2021;
2. The resident had been put on the transfer list with the highest priority;
3. The landlord acknowledged there had been poor communication since August 2021 and the resident had not been kept up-to-date to the extent that he should have;
4. The landlord stated that it would normally advise residents to submit an insurance claim for damaged belongings, however, in recognition of the delays, the landlord offered £200 towards the cost of the resident’s bed and carpet that were damaged by the damp;
5. The landlord also offered an additional £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to the poor communication since August 2021 and a further £50 for complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Legislation and the landlord’s policies

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy and website state that it is responsible for carrying out repairs in relation to damp and mould. The policy states that emergency repairs are completed or made safe within four hours, non-emergency repairs are completed within 28 calendar days and programmed repairs, i.e. works that require additional time due to complexity or specialist trades are completed within 60 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states: “Compensation payments are made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure on our part or if we have failed to carry out a service within our published guidelines”. The policy specifies sums that can be paid by the landlord for time trouble and inconvenience, poor complaint handling and other service failures.

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

In terms of the period covered by the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident first contacted the landlord about mould on 15 October 2020. In response, the landlord’s contractor visited the property on 10 November 2020 with the intention of carrying out a mould wash. However, it found that the walls were too wet to carry out the work and therefore it supplied a dehumidifier to help dry them out. The landlord’s initial response was therefore reasonable and in line with its repairs policy of dealing with non-emergencies within 28 calendar days.
The landlord stated in its letter dated 5 July 2021 that the contractor returned to the property on 17 November 2020 to review the position but was unable to gain access. The landlord has stated that the contractor attempted to contact the resident on various occasions afterwards, but was unsuccessful (the access difficulties are reflected in the repairs log submitted to this Service). The contractor carried out the mould wash on 11 December 2020. Therefore, given that the walls had to dry out and there was a delay in gaining access to the property, the landlord (through its contractor) acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s initial report of mould.
The resident’s next report of mould and condensation was on 29 December 2020. In response, the landlord’s contractor made an appointment to visit the property on 10 February 2021. This timescale was inappropriate as it was outside the 28 day period stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy for non-emergency repairs. The landlord acknowledged this in its letter dated 5 July 2021.
On 26 January 2021, an appointment was also booked for a roofing contractor to check the roof following receipt of a letter from the resident’s MP, which mentioned a possible roof leak. Following various visits by the contractor to assess the roof and to carry out a dye test, the contractor applied a protective waterproof coating to the roof on 22 April 2021. The landlord has stated that the delay in completing the roof works was due to poor weather and the need to monitor the situation following the dye test. It took over three months to reseal the roof, whereas the landlord’s repairs policy states that roofing work is carried out as a programmable repair within 60 days. The landlord accepted in its letter dated 29 June 2021 that this repair had been delayed and offered compensation. Given the delay in carrying out the roof work, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident to recognize the impact the leak was having in exacerbating the condensation. The £400 offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that up to £400 can be given for time, trouble and inconvenience where there has been “extensive disruption…high impact…extended time to complete actions and failure to communicate or follow procedure”.
Work was carried out inside the property by the contractor from 24 May 2021 until 3 June 2021, and this included work to the kitchen and mould treatment. However, the landlord’s repairs log indicates that during the period from 29 December 2020 until 24 May 2021, no internal work was carried out to remove the mould. While this Service accepts that the landlord was investigating a roof leak during this period, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not taken action sooner to remove the mould. This meant that the resident was exposed to mould in the property for almost five months after reporting it. The landlord had identified during the surveyor’s inspection on 12 April 2021 that the resident was not following advice to adequately heat and ventilate the property. While this may have contributed towards the level of condensation in the property, the landlord has also confirmed that other contributory factors were the roof leak, the construction of the block and the lack of insulation.
The resident next reported mould on 22 August 2021 and he enclosed photos and videos to illustrate the problem. This was followed by further emails from the resident in September and October 2021, in which he stated that he had disposed of his bed and some clothes due to damage from damp and mould. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed the presence of mould during his inspection on 4 November 2021, and shortly afterwards the landlord agreed to increase the resident’s priority for a transfer to an alternative property. The resident moved out of the property on or about 22 December 2021. The landlord’s records show that no further work was carried out to remove mould from the property after the resident’s report on 22 August 2021. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to arrange for the mould to be removed as it meant that the resident was exposed to mould for a further four months before moving out.
The landlord’s letter dated 24 December 2021 does indicate that during the intervening period it provided further advice to the resident on steps he could take to reduce condensation. Also, the landlord arranged the surveyor’s inspection, which indicates that it was investigating whether any further action could be taken to prevent the condensation and mould.
While recognising that the landlord has now resolved the issue by transferring the resident, this assessment has identified two periods during which the landlord should have taken action to remove mould from the property. The evidence is that this would not have resolved the underlying problems, but at least it would have temporarily improved the conditions within the property. In October 2021, the Housing Ombudsman produced a spotlight report on damp and mould and one of its recommendations was: “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. Although the spotlight report was produced after most of the period covered by this investigation, the principles within the report were based on previous best practice. The potential health problems caused by mould are known, and therefore the landlord should have acted with greater urgency to treat the mould, even if this had only temporarily alleviated the problem.
Evidence provided to this Service by the landlord indicates that it is now taking urgent action to address damp and mould. For example, its website states: “we take damp and mould really seriously…this has been a big focus for us over the past couple of years and we have a specialist team and specialist contractors in place to help us tackle the issue”.
In its stage two complaint letters, the landlord accepted that there had been delays in dealing with the roof leak and mould and therefore offered the following financial redress (excluding redress for complaint handling, which is covered below):

Dehumidifier contribution @£2 per day: £62

Time trouble and inconvenience for period prior to August 2021: £400

Time trouble and inconvenience for period after August 2021: £100

Contribution towards cost of replacement bed and carpet: £200

Total £762

The landlord’s offer is within the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure “which had a significant impact on the resident”. In the view of this Service, the offer was reasonable and recognised the landlord’s delays in dealing with the damp and mould.
The above shows that the landlord offered £200 as a contribution towards the replacement of the resident’s damaged bed and carpet. This Service has not seen any evidence on which to assess whether the amount offered is appropriate. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states: “…where damage has been caused directly as a result of our actions or oversight, or those of contractors acting on our behalf, consideration will be given to reimbursement without the need for a resident to make [an insurance] claim at further inconvenience and cost to themselves”. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings as an alternative to the resident submitting an insurance claim.
In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the view of this Service is that landlord acted reasonably by:
1. Acknowledging where services were not delivered to the required standard;
2. Putting it right by offering reasonable financial redress;
3. Acting fairly by increasing the resident’s priority for rehousing when it became apparent that it was not feasible to carry out repairs to resolve the underlying problems.
The Service has noted the resident’s request for a refund of the rent for the period when he was not occupying the property (November – December 2020). However, the landlord has stated that it did not agree that the resident could vacate the property during this period and therefore the resident remained liable for the rent. While this Service sympathises with the resident because of the rent arrears that accrued during the period of non-occupation, in general, tenants do not have the right to withhold rent, and remain liable for the rent unless otherwise agreed with the landlord. In this case, the landlord had not deemed any part of the property to be uninhabitable following a surveyor’s inspection and therefore did not agree that the rent would be reduced or waived.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy, with stage one complaints being acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints should be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 15 working days.
The landlord confirmed on 16 March 2021 that the resident’s report of damp and mould would be escalated to a stage one complaint as, in line with its policy, the repairs had been outstanding for 60 days (this Service has not been able to locate this policy in the landlord’s complaint or repairs policies). The landlord sent an interim response on 29 March 2021, which was within the landlord’s ten working day target. However, the full stage one complaint response was not sent until 15 June 2021, which was significantly outside the target timescale stipulated in its complaint policy and therefore the delay was inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged this delay in its response letter and offered £50 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy indicates that this level of compensation is within the range of compensation where there has been a failure to follow the complaints policy or procedure correctly and this has resulted in inconvenience and effort for the resident to progress the complaint. In this case, it meant that the resident was uncertain about the start date for internal repairs and he therefore had to write to the landlord requesting information. The delay therefore had an adverse impact on the resident. However, the landlord did maintain contact with the resident by inspecting the property in April 2021 and corresponded with the resident during May 2021. Therefore, taking these factors into account, the offer of £50 compensation for complaint handling was reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2021 to say he was unhappy with the overall compensation offered by the landlord. This should have been treated by the landlord as a request to escalate the complaint, as the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the stage one response. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint process until 5 July 2021, when the resident explicitly asked for it to be escalated. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 27 August 2021, which was outside of its 15 working day target and also outside of the maximum extension period of 10 working days allowed in the landlord’s complaints policy. The time taken by the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding and offered an additional £50 compensation in its stage two response. Given that the landlord had maintained contact with the resident during the intervening period by writing to him on 23 July and 13 August 2021, the landlord’s offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord later reviewed its compensation offer and on 24 December 2021 it sent a follow-up stage two complaint response and offered an additional £50 for poor complaint handling. Therefore, the landlord offered a total of £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling (£50 for the stage one complaint and £100 for stage two). The landlord’s compensation policy states that £100 is the maximum that can be offered for complaint handling and is to recognise cases where there is evidence of extensive failure to follow the complaint policy or procedure. In this case, it was right for the landlord to recognise the additional time and effort involved in the resident having to send emails during August 2021 to check progress in relation to the complaint. By offering reasonable compensation, the landlord had taken steps to put right its complaint handling failures, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The content of the landlord’s stage two complaint response demonstrated a learning approach. It identified that there had been a delay in assigning the stage two complaint due to a shortage of staff and it was therefore taking action to recruit an additional staff member. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his previous property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the delays in dealing with the repairs relating to the roof and the damp and mould, offered appropriate financial redress and increased the resident’s priority for rehousing in order to speed up his transfer to suitable alternative accommodation.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in dealing with the resident’s complaints, apologised, offered appropriate financial redress and demonstrated that it was learning from the complaints.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident compensation of £962 if this has not already been paid. The sum consists of £612 offered on 27 August 2021 and £350 offered on 24 December 2021.