Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202315952)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has lived in the property since 11 November 2021. She suffers from COPD and asthma. She is hard of hearing and the complaint was brought to us by an authorised representative. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and the resident’s representative as “the resident”. Between June 2022 and November 2023, the resident reported leaks in her property with associated damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress offered for failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord remedied the dam and mould, considered the repairs delays and the inconvenience caused to the resident, apologised, and made a reasonable offer of compensation.
7. The landlord considered its complaint handling failings and further inconvenience caused to the resident, apologised, and made a reasonable offer of compensation to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. The resident has complained that damp and mould has affected her health. We cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered general distress and inconvenience of any failings by the landlord.
9. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will carry out everyday repairs within 28 calendar days. The landlord has a separate damp and mould policy. It says it will respond promptly to all reports of damp and mould. In its complaint response it said its procedure required it to carry out a mould wash within 7 days and remedial repairs within 21 days.
10. It is sometimes the case that a landlord cannot keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to communicate regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
11. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. In its stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged delays in progressing repairs and inconvenience caused. It apologised and offered compensation.
12. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. The resident first raised a report of damp and mould in June 2022 and its final repair in respect of damp and mould was 17 months later in November 2023. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as water ingress. It can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset, especially where more than one property may be involved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failing. A landlord must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
14. The resident reported damp and mould on 13 June 2022. The landlord attended on 22 June 2022 to carry out a mould wash and noted further investigation was required. On 11 July 2022, it carried out an inspection and found a leak under the sink and a leak on the incoming mains pipe. It raised work orders and completed those works on 28 July 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe to carry out investigations and repairs.
15. On 9 September 2022, the resident reported that the issue had not resolved and dampness remained in the walls. The landlord delayed in carrying out its further inspection. On 6 October 2022, it found no sign of mechanical failure or leaks. It concluded that the moisture had not dried out from the previous leak. It provided a dehumidifier and raised a further inspection order to assess the damp after 1 week with the dehumidifier. These were reasonable steps to assess the issue for the resident.
16. On 31 October 2022, the landlord found that the moisture content was still high despite the presence of a dehumidifier for 1 week. It found mould behind a mirror and wallpaper. It washed the mould with bleach and noted that the resident suffered from COPD. This was an appropriate action to take in the circumstances.
17. On 4 November 2022, its notes show that it called the resident to arrange a further inspection but there was no answer. An inspection of the resident’s property and 2 neighbouring properties took place on 29 December 2022. This was 2 months after it found a high level of damp in the wall. It is reasonable to conclude that there was further contact because a survey was arranged for 29 December 2022, however, the landlords records do not show what further contact was made or the reason for the delay.
18. On 29 December 2022, the landlord found a leak and a large amount of water in her neighbour’s property which was the likely cause of all the water damage to the resident’s property. The surveyor recommended emergency repairs to the neighbouring property to remove the floor to fix the leak. It recommended dehumidifiers to the residents property after the works were complete and a survey.
19. The landlord completed the repairs on 11 January 2023 and on 7 February 2023, it raised an inspection to survey the resident’s property. It attended on 11 February 2023 but did not get access. It reattended on 22 February 2023, and its survey notes that mould spots were found in the entrance hallway, it found paper peeling in the kitchen, water streaks in walls in the bedroom, and paper peeling in the living room.
20. The survey notes were not comprehensive and did not indicate the extent of the mould and there is no evidence that work orders were raised because of this survey. It is noted that in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord could not find a copy of this surveyors attendance in its records. This was a record keeping failing.
21. The landlord was on notice of mould in the hallway on 22 February 2023 when it surveyed the property but did not attend to complete a mould wash until 76 days later on 10 May 2023. This was after a further chaser and a complaint from the resident. This delay was unreasonable and beyond its own timescales for responding to reports of mould. This delay caused distress to the resident who reported that the mould affected her health.
22. On 1 June 2023, the landlord surveyed the property again. It made a work schedule which included repairing guttering, and mould washes and treatment in the kitchen, bathroom, front door, bedroom, and lounge wall. The landlord committed to starting these works within 4 weeks; however, the evidence indicates that the works did not start until 14 weeks later on 11 September 2023. This was an unreasonable delay beyond the landlord’s timescales for repairs.
23. The resident lived with damp for an unreasonable amount of time. She experienced inconvenience during the works. While it is positive the landlord surveyed the damage caused by water ingress and completed works to treat the damp and mould, the resident had to live with the disruption this caused and the landlords subsequent delay in carrying out remedial works.
24. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord recognised the repair delays and inconvenience caused and offered redress of £550. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 response provided within 10 working days. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
26. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response twice. When the resident escalated her complaint, she specifically referenced her complaint about the same issues 6 months previously. The landlord failed to identify this as a stage 2 complaint escalation and as a consequence prolonged the complaint process which caused further inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was 10 working days beyond the timescales. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord apologised and acknowledged this delay before it issued its stage 2 complaint response.
28. The landlord’s complaint handling failings caused further inconvenience to the resident. It apologised and offered £100 for the complaint handling failings. This was a reasonable offer in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Repairs record keeping

29. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord delayed following up on the recommendations of its surveyor and indicated little oversight when repairs were passed to its contractors. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling 

30. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was significantly improved from its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord carried out a comprehensive investigation and identified failings in both its repair responses and its previous complaint handling. This was a good example of a landlord effectively using its complaint handling procedure to consider its failings and put things right for the resident.