Plexus UK (First Project) Limited (202229912)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229912

Plexus UK (First Project) Limited

31 July 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a 2-bedroom flat, which she has occupied since 2018. She lives in the property with her 2 children.
The evidence indicates that the resident had reported damp and mould to the landlord on a number of occasions since moving into the property. The resident reported that there was mould in her children’s bedroom, as well as other rooms in the property.
The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould on 19 December 2022. The resident stated that she had not received a sufficient response to her recent report of damp and mould, made on 5 December 2022. The resident raised issues with the landlord’s communication and that a repairs appointment had not been attended. The resident stated that the damp and mould was spreading and expressed concern over her children’s health and possible damage to furniture.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023. The landlord apologised for how long it had taken to get the issues in the property resolved. It stated that an appointment had been arranged for 5 January 2023.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 January 2023 and said that she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. She said that the damp and mould had been an issue since moving into the property and that it was experienced for 6 months every year. The resident said that the root cause of the damp should be identified and that the landlord should provide her with an explanation about what would be done to prevent the damp and mould. The resident questioned whether the landlord would facilitate a move to an alternative property if nothing could be done about the mould.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same date and said that it would schedule another appointment. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 17 February 2022 and works were recommended following this to address the damp and mould.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 February 2023 and raised concerns about mould in her children’s bedroom. She stated that the mould had previously affected furniture and her children’s clothes, and resulted in her children having fungal skin infections. She said that one of her children had respiratory issues and was required to use an inhaler throughout the night due to the mould. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and the landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2023 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
The landlord issued a stage 2 initial complaint response on 12 June 2023. The landlord stated that mould washes had been carried out, but it needed to ascertain why the issue was reoccurring. The landlord sent a further stage 2 initial response to the resident on 25 July 2023 which stated that the possibility of a leak had been ruled out, and that the matter was being escalated to senior management to establish what else could be done.
The landlord issued its final stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2023. It stated that a specialist contractor had carried out an inspection and made the following recommendations:
1. Replace the extractor hood over the cooker,
2. Install trickle vents in all windows which must be kept open.
3. Install a mechanical vent in the smaller bedroom. It was noted that this would have an impact on sleeping as it would need to be kept on.
4. Return the small bedroom to single occupancy and increase the amount of ventilation and air flow.
The landlord confirmed that works orders had been raised for the cooker extractor hood to be replaced, trickle vents to be installed in all windows and for a mould wash to be carried out. The landlord said that a move to an alternative property was not an option due to limited availability of stock, and it advised the resident to contact the local authority. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and for the distress and inconvenience caused, and offered £350 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 January 2024 and stated that the damp and mould had been the same since she moved into the property and before she had her second child. The resident said that the landlord was avoiding finding the root cause of the problem.
In July 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that her children had been sleeping in her room due to the mould, and that she was therefore paying rent for a 2-bedroom but was only able to use 1 bedroom. She said that the situation had caused her anxiety and she expressed concern over her children’s health. The resident stated that if the damp and mould could not be permanently fixed, then she wanted to be transferred to a property that was adequately sized for her and her 2 children.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on the health of her and her children. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s children’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that it will investigate and diagnose the cause of damp or mould and deliver effective remedial solutions. The policy states that the landlord will provide progress updates to residents and give comprehensive and focussed advice on how to manage damp, mould or condensation. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs within 20 working days.
The repairs records indicate that the resident made frequent reports of damp and mould from the end of 2020. In November 2020 the resident reported that her son was asthmatic and was having to use his inhaler more often at night due to the damp and mould. The landlord raised works orders in November and December 2020 for mould washes to be carried out. The evidence indicates that a mould wash was completed on 16 November 2020 however, it is unclear whether any further works took place in December 2020.
The resident raised further reports about damp and mould in March 2021, including that a chest of drawers had been damaged by the mould. A further works order was raised by the landlord for a mould wash and re-decoration however, it is unclear when this was carried out. The repairs records note that an operative attended on 7 May 2021 to do a mould wash, but the resident was not aware that the appointment was due to take place and so the works did not go ahead. It is unclear whether this was re-booked. The records show that the landlord raised another works order for a mould wash on 6 October 2021 and this was carried out on 26 October 2021.
While it is reasonable for landlords to undertake mould washes, they should also ensure that steps are taken to address the cause of the damp and mould to prevent it from reoccurring. The evidence provided indicates that the landlord did not initially undertake any investigative steps, despite the resident’s numerous reports of damp and mould.
The repairs records reflect that a works order was raised on 10 January 2022 for an inspection of the damp and mould and the landlord’s surveyor attended on 17 February 2022. The survey found that there was mould in the bedrooms and living room. Works orders were raised to install trickle vents in the windows, install an extractor fan in the kitchen, upgrade the extractor fan in the bathroom, carry out a mould treatment and paint with anti-mould paint.
While the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the property, it ought to have acted quickly to carry out the recommended repairs. However, the evidence indicates that an appointment for these works took place on 1 June 2022. This reflects a significant delay which was outside of the timescales stipulated in the repairs policy, and was therefore a failing by the landlord. Further, it appears that none of the works took place during this appointment. The repairs records state that the mould treatment could not be carried out because the resident’s children were present, and that this should be rebooked after the school holidays. The records also state that an electrician was needed for the extractor fan repairs and that the trickle vents could not be installed and that this would require 2 operatives and a scaffold tower.
The landlord ought to have ensured it had the correct resources to complete the job. It also would have been appropriate for it to have communicated with the resident beforehand to ensure that the appointment was scheduled at a suitable time to allow the mould treatment to be carried out. There is no indication that the landlord scheduled a further appointment for the works, which indicates a failing by the landlord to address the damp and mould in a timely manner.
The evidence reflects that a routine inspection took place on 11 July 2022. The notes state that there was mould in the bedroom, and that the resident had reported this was affecting her children’s health. The landlord noted that a mould treatment was required however, there is no indication that the landlord undertook this work.
No evidence has been provided to reflect any further reports by the resident or actions by the landlord until the resident made contact on 6 and 9 December 2022 to request updates on the mould treatment that was planned for the property. The resident requested a further update on 13 December 2022 and said that the mould was getting worse, before raising her complaint on 19 December 2022. This indicates a further failing by the landlord as it did not provide a timely response, and the resident was required to spend time chasing the landlord.
In its stage 1 response the managing agent stated that the repair was assigned to the landlord to complete within 20 working days. It said that after no response was received from the landlord, the managing agent raised a job. It is unclear why the landlord took no action in response to the resident’s reports. This indicates a further failing.
The landlord carried out a mould wash in the property on 6 January 2023. While this was an appropriate action, there is no evidence to indicate that it also undertook the other works that were recommended as part of the February 2022 inspection. On the same date, the resident raised her concerns that a mould wash was not a suitable treatment to remedy the issue and requested to know what the landlord would do to prevent the damp, mould and condensation, particularly in the children’s room. The landlord stated it would book another appointment to address the mould and asked the resident what days she would be available. It is unclear whether the resident responded accordingly or whether the landlord made any further efforts to arrange an appointment, which it ought to have done.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in May 2023 after the resident referred her complaint to us. The landlord then visited the resident on 19 June 2023 to inspect the damp and mould and it was suggested that the issue may have been caused by a leak from the above property. A further visit took place by a surveyor in July 2023 and the cause of the damp was determined to be condensation. The surveyor stated that advice had been given to the resident on how to ventilate the bedroom. However, no works were recommended to address the damp issue. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took action to progress the previously recommended trickle vent and extractor fan works.
The landlord appropriately arranged an independent survey of the damp and mould which took place on 15 August 2023. The recommendations of this survey are listed in paragraph 11. The survey also noted that the children’s bedroom was being used as double rather than single occupancy, and it was recommended that this be reduced back to single to allow increased ventilation.
In its September 2023 stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it had raised works orders as per the recommendations made by the surveyor. The landlord’s repairs records dated 15 September 2023 state that the job raised for the trickle vents required 2 operatives and a scaffold tower. The evidence indicates that an appointment for the works was scheduled on 1 November 2023, which was more than 2 months after the survey, and was therefore outside of the timeframes stipulated in the repairs policy. However, no works were completed and the notes relating to this visit state that 2 operatives were needed.
A further appointment took place on 28 November 2023 when the landlord completed a mould treatment and stain block in the children’s bedroom. However, it appears that the landlord did not have the correct materials to install the trickle vents on this visit. It is unclear whether the extractor fan works in the kitchen and bathroom were carried out. The evidence reflects that a further appointment was scheduled for 21 December 2023 however, it is unclear whether this appointment went ahead.
The trickle vents and extractor fan repairs had been recommended by the landlord’s surveyor in February 2022, and the delay in carrying out these works indicates a significant failing by the landlord. The repairs records indicate that the landlord attended on more than 1 occasion without the correct resources to install the trickle vents, despite the requirements for this job being documented following the June 2022 appointment.
The landlord undertook a repairs appointment on 11 March 2024 which indicates a further significant delay in carrying out the works. The repairs records reflect that trickle vents were fitted to the bedroom windows. However, the vents were not fitted to the living room window as a scaffold tower was required, indicating that this appointment was also attended without the correct resources to complete the works.
It is also noted that within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it was obtaining quotes for mechanical ventilation options. However, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the landlord provided any further update to the resident about whether it would follow this recommendation. This reflects a failure to properly communicate with the resident to provide progress updates.
The resident instructed a survey which took place on 24 April 2024, and this identified mould, particularly around the windows in the property, which was believed to be due to a build-up of condensation. The survey states that mould was also found on the ceiling and walls in a corner of bedroom 2, which is believed to be the resident’s children’s bedroom, and that the wallpaper was peeling in this area. The survey recommended that the mould should be treated with fungicide solution, decorations should be made good, an extractor fan should be installed in the kitchen and the bathroom extractor fan should be serviced to effective working order. The survey stated that if the mould growth continued despite these measures being implemented, then consideration should be given to the installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit. No evidence has been provided to reflect that any further works have been carried out, and the resident reported that the issue remains ongoing.
Overall, the evidence indicates that there were delays by the landlord in investigating the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord ought to have taken robust action to investigate and remedy the root cause of the damp much sooner, rather than focussing on treating the symptom by only carrying out mould washes. The cause of the issue was identified as being due to condensation as a result of a lack of ventilation, and actions were identified that could help to resolve the issue. However, there were significant delays by the landlord to properly address the damp and mould, and it failed to carry out the repairs recommended by its own surveyor in February 2022 and the independent survey in August 2023 within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould is particularly concerning given that the resident reported concerns about her children’s health, and that one of her children has asthma. The failings identified in this report amount to severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should recognise that such issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. The spotlight report recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. There is no indication that the landlord provided the resident with timescales for when the works would be completed and the delays experienced reflect that it failed to act with urgency, despite the health concerns raised.
The Spotlight report also recommends that landlords should review initial responses to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. The July 2023 visit and the August 2023 survey identified that the double occupancy of the bedroom could be contributing to the lack of ventilation, and the landlord included this finding in its stage 2 complaint response. While it is reasonable for landlords to provide advice to residents about preventing damp, it must also take proactive steps to prevent the damp and mould. The landlord failed to do this.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it will sometimes find it necessary to make a direct let to a current tenant for an alternative property in certain circumstances. It appears that the landlord did not give consideration to a direct let due to limited availability of stock and its contractual arrangements with the local authority. The landlord advised the resident to present to the local authority as she had a case to be re-housed due to overcrowding. It is noted that the landlord did not provide any advice to the resident on other options such as a transfer application or mutual exchange, which would have been reasonable. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the local authority stated it was unable to help and had referred her back to the landlord. A further order has been made for the landlord to provide clear advice to the resident regarding all options for a move and provide assistance to her where possible. The resident’s request to be moved should not result in any delays by the landlord in completing outstanding damp and mould repairs.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays by the landlord to properly address the damp and mould, which has resulted in concern about her children’s health and the family using only 1 bedroom. The resident has also incurred time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord, which remains ongoing.
The landlord made some efforts to “put things right” by offering the resident £350 within its September 2023 stage 2 complaint response. However, the amount offered is insufficient to remedy the impact of the delays in resolving the issue and does not take into account the further delays following the stage 2 complaint response. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests amounts of over £1,000 for severe failings that have had a long-term impact on the resident.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out the works recommended in the most recent survey, which includes a mould wash, repairs to extractor fans and the installation of a PIV unit. The landlord should also clarify whether trickle vents have been installed in the living room window and install these if this has not been done.
The landlord should also evidence that it has learned from the outcome of the complaint. As such, a further order has been made for the landlord to conduct a review of its handling of the case to identify why the failings occurred, and implement any learning that can prevent these occurring again.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states the landlord will provide the resident with a full and final response at stage 2.
The resident raised a complaint on 19 December 2022 and the landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2023, which was within the 10-day timeframe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 and stated that she was unhappy with the complaint response and said that she wanted to know what would be done to address the root cause of the damp. She questioned whether the landlord would be prepared to move her to an alternative property if nothing could be done. Given that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint outcome, the landlord ought to have escalated the complaint to stage 2. However, the complaint was only escalated after contact from the Ombudsman in May 2023. This reflects poor complaint handling by the landlord.
The landlord issued 2 stage 2 “initial response” letters to the resident on 12 June 2023 and 25 July 2023. The stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 13 September 2023. The landlord did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy as it failed to provide a “full and final” stage 2 response within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code does not provide for “initial responses” to be issued prior to the stage 2 response. The code states that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
There was maladministration by the landlord as it did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy or the code. The delays in receiving a stage 2 response caused inconvenience to the resident and led to a delay in her ability to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman. An order has been made below for compensation to be paid in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for minor failures which the landlord did not acknowledge.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £3,300, made up as follows:
1. £2,800 for the handling of the damp and mould. This amount is in addition to the £350 offered at stage 2.
2. £150 for complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord must carry out the outstanding works to address the damp and mould, including extractor fan repairs, mould wash, installation of trickle vents and a PIV unit, plus any further actions that may be identified. The landlord should provide confirmation to the Ombudsman when the works have been completed.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the delays in addressing the damp and mould and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result. The apology should be made in writing by a staff member at director level.
Under paragraph 53(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must, within 4 weeks, conduct a review of its handling of the damp and mould to identify why the failings occurred and any measures that can be put in place to prevent these from occurring again in future. The outcome of this review should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide advice to the resident on her options for moving properties and offer relevant support and assistance to her, where possible.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframes stipulated.