Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202016457)

Background

1. The resident has reported damp and mould in the property over several years. In January 2024 she reported damp and mould in her bathroom, kitchen, and hallway. The resident has lupus and arthritis, the landlord was made aware of this when she moved into the property. 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In  summary, we have found that the landlord:
   1. Placed too much blame on the resident for the presence of damp and mould.
   2. Did not have a clear record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
   3. Took too long to carry out repairs to resolve the matter.
   4. Did not keep the resident up to date on the progress of the stage 2 complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. We understand the resident’s assertion that she has experienced mould for several years. The landlord does not have record of any reports between 2020 and 2024. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents must report any repairs to the landlord promptly so the matter can be addressed. We would not find a failing where a landlord has not remedied an issue it was not made aware of at the time. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the events from January 2024.
8. The resident told us that the reported damp and mould has impacted their health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience, and if it has responded appropriately when the resident reported this.
9. When the resident reported damp and mould in January 2024, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection. The surveyor gave the resident practical advice and recommended the installation of an extractor fan. While it was good practice for the landlord to complete a mould wash, this should not be seen as a permanent solution and landlords should take steps to monitor address the cause of the mould to prevent it returning.
10. The evidence shows that the mould had returned by April 2024. At this stage, the landlord should have taken a proactive approach to investigate the cause of the mould to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord missed an opportunity to reinspect the property and instead asserted that the resident’s actions were causing the mould. This was not reasonable because it placed blame on the resident.
11. The landlord did not reinspect the property until after the stage 2 complaint was made, this meant that the work required to resolve the mould was not identified or completed at the earliest opportunity. The resident was evidently distressed by the condition of the property. 
12. When the resident reported that the mould was impacting the health of her and her children, the landlord failed to demonstrate empathy, acknowledge the resident’s concerns, or offer any advice or support. When the resident said that the mould was worsening her lupus symptoms, the landlord said it was not aware the resident had this condition. This was not correct because it is recorded in the resident’s occupancy agreement from 2012. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord. The landlord re–categorised the mould as ‘priority 1’ in light of the resident’s health, but this should have been the approach it took from the start.
13. The landlord aims to complete repairs within 28 calendar days but it missed this timeframe on several occasions, including for the installation of the kitchen extractor fan and the works identified in its July 2024 inspection. This would have been frustrating for the resident. It is unclear if there is any remaining work required in the property. The evidence suggests that the resident did not always respond to the landlord’s contractor when it tried to arrange appointments. Repairs and maintenance appointments often need the cooperation of both parties to make sure that they are completed correctly.
14. Given that the resident is vulnerable and that the mould could not be resolved until the works were completed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence it had continued to take steps to carry out the works. For example the landlord could have reminded the resident of her obligation to allow access for repairs under her tenancy agreement or discussed with the resident if there were any barriers to her allowing access.
15. When the resident reported that her belongings had been damaged, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to her contents insurance or to provide its own insurance details for her to make a claim. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not consider it was liable for the damage. However we note that he landlord subsequently offered the resident £300 for damage caused to these items of furniture. This suggests the landlord changed its position. We welcome this step by the landlord to resolve this matter.
16. Overall, the landlord was not proactive in identifying the cause of the mould and unreasonably placed blame on the resident. When it identified the cause of the mould, it took too long to complete repairs which caused distress and inconvenience. In its final response, the landlord offered £10 for a missed repair appointment and £50 for its delay in completing the repairs. The evidence shows that there were further failures that the landlord has not accounted for. The resident’s vulnerabilities meant the impact on her was greater, and the landlord’s failure to show empathy for the resident’s situation aggravated the matter.
17. Taking this into account, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. An order has been made to the pay the resident additional compensation of £400. This reflects the likely inconvenience, frustration, and distress caused by the landlord’s failings. This sum reflects the fact that, due to her vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings or the impact identified by our investigation.

18. The landlord took 42 days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 46 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This is outside of the response times outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord did contact the resident to let them know that it needed more time to respond to the stage 1 complaint, but it did not provide a new deadline which was not in keeping with the Code. It also provided a revised deadline for its stage 2 response, but its response was already overdue by the time it provided this update. It is important that landlords inform residents in good time if more time is needed to respond to a complaint, this helps to maintain a good landlord/resident relationship and reassure residents that the landlord is taking the complaint seriously.
20. The landlord offered the resident £50 in recognition of its late stage 1 response, but it did not acknowledge its failure to keep the resident up to date on the timeframe for its stage 2 response. While the delay did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint, it would have been frustrating for the resident. We have made an order of compensation of a further £50 to reflect the landlord’s failure to respond on time.

Learning

Damp and mould

21. Landlords should take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously, and that the matter is progressing.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. We expect landlords to keep a robust record of resident’s vulnerabilities but this was not the case here. This meant the resident did not feel understood and there was a delay in the landlord treating the matter at a higher priority.

Complaint handling

23. We acknowledge that there are times when landlords need more time to respond to a complaint. In these cases, landlords must tell the resident as soon as possible, outline the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe.