Plus Dane Housing Limited (202204372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204372

Plus Dane Housing Limited

20 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of several leaks in the property, causing damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord which began on 15 October 2018. The property is a two bedroom mid-terrace house.
There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The family moved to the property from Syria.
The landlord has a repairs policy which states that:
1. Routine repair appointments will take place within 28 days except where there is an emergency
2. Major repairs are considered to be jobs that require more planning, materials and manpower than responsive work. The target for this time of work is 90 days. Remedial work to cure damp problems are considered to be major repairs
3. Operatives will never leave a property without informing a resident what will happen next and who will contact them
4. The policy does not affect anyone differently because of their protected characteristics
5. Residents must allow the landlord and its contractors access to the property at reasonable times.
The landlord has conducted a self-assessment in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould. The assessment states that:
1. It will give reports of damp an appropriate priority level and appointment scheduling will take place through a triage system
2. It will use a specialist contractor, experts and independent reports (where required) to identify damp and mould
3. It will schedule a six month follow up inspection to any works completed, and will monitor the effectiveness of remedial works
4. All communications are positioned specifically not to apportion blame to residents and it recognises that it should act promptly in all cases
5. Consideration of appropriate ventilation and monitoring equipment will be taken into account as part of the landlord’s planning and monitoring programme.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out at initial quick resolution step followed by a two stage complaints process with formal responses required:
1. At stage one – within 10 working days of the acknowledgement
2. At stage two – within 20 working days of the complaint escalation
The landlord has a compensation framework that allows for compensation to be awarded where “exceptional inconvenience or distress has been caused”.
The landlord’s records show that there were issues with leaks and resulting damp and mould in the property from 2017 when it was occupied by the previous resident. Records noted that:
1. Works were required following water ingress from the front of the property on 8 September 2017
2. A mould wash and stain block was required to the front bedroom on 16 October 2017
3. A leak in the bathroom was reported on 4 July 2017 and 25 June 2018.
The resident reports that he first raised concerns about damp and mould in the property during a viewing that took place in August 2018. No notes were seen from this visit. However the landlord’s records show that on 17 October 2018, two days after the resident moved in, he reported the newly painted main bedroom wall was wet to the touch, and there was water dripping from the corner onto the floor. He had concerns about his two year old daughter.
An appointment to inspect the roof was arranged for 30 October 2018. The resident cancelled the appointment and a new appointment was arranged for 30 November 2018. A note was added to the system which prompted operatives to call the resident before attendance.
On 19 December 2018 the landlord’s records show a repair was raised to repair the felt on the roof which it marked as complete on 18 January 2019. There was a gap of approximately ten months with no further reports of issues.
On 5 November 2019 the resident reported that the roof was leaking at the front of the property. Records show that the landlord attended the same day and advised the resident that:
1. The operatives had inspected the external area of the property and had taken photographs but could not see where the leak was coming from. It could be from the neighbouring property which appeared to have had a new roof
2. The property was not owned by the landlord, and therefore the resident would need to approach his neighbours and ask that they resolve the problem
3. If the leak appeared elsewhere in his property, then it would attend again to conduct a full inspection of the inside.
The resident responded to the landlord and said:
1. He was unsure how he supposed to approach his neighbour (who was a tenant of a private landlord) to ask his landlord to fix the roof that affected his property
2. It would be easier if the landlord made contact with the private landlord directly to explain the problem to them
3. He had been reporting issues with the roof since 2018 but the landlord had taken no action.
On 21 November 2019 the resident chased the status of the roof repairs. On 28 November 2019 the landlord noted that a technical inspection took place, however no notes of the inspection were seen.
On 8 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord out of hours and said that there was a leak coming through his bathroom which was not containable. The landlord tried to contact the resident two days later but was unsuccessful, so passed the report to its roofing contractors. The job was marked as complete on 13 February 2020.
Between 21 March and 7 August 2020 the resident reported further repairs which included:
1. A radiator had fallen off the wall, a pipe had burst and the leak was uncontainable
2. A leaking tap (location unknown)
3. Faulty kitchen extractor fan.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord raised a priority job for a roof leak. The notes stated that the leak had got into the electrics, it attended and made it safe. On 7 August 2020, the landlord’s notes recorded that its roofing contractors would be in contact directly with the resident to arrange the roof repair.
On 18 October 2020 the landlord noted that it had received contact from the local council about “repairs complaints”. A copy of the email was not seen however a note stated that it was sent to the disrepair team. On 19 October 2020 the landlord raised a job to “check and repair the roof as required”. An appointment was arranged and marked as complete on 28 October 2020.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord raised a repair to strip off and replace the felt covering the box gutter and bay roof. Replacement of the under tiling and insulation on the eves were also raised. The resident was informed of the appointment and it was marked complete on 22 December 2020. There were no further reports for approximately eight months.
On 1 August 2021 the resident made an out of hours report that there was water leaking into his kitchen from upstairs, which happened when the bath was emptied. The landlord advised the resident to call the office the next day and not to use the bath in the meantime. The job was marked as “deferred, non-urgent”.
On 6 October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak from the bathroom into the kitchen was ongoing. The landlord raised a priority job for the plumber to inspect if water had got into the electrics. The job was marked as complete the same day.
On 14 February 2022 the resident reported that there was still a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen. A job was raised the next day to refix the cistern to the wall. Further works to the kitchen were raised on 21 April 2022 to “fill the kitchen ceiling and stain block”. Both jobs were marked as complete the same day they were raised.
On 1 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that he had still had no contact about the roof issues from the neighbouring property, and he would be approaching the Ombudsman for assistance.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had reported water ingress into the property. Its notes stated that the property that could be causing the issue was privately owned. On 8 June 2022 the resident told the landlord:
1. It was the second time he had to complain about the same problem that had been ongoing for four years
2. He had formally complained in October 2020. The landlord sent an operative who had identified follow up works, but “nothing changed”
3. The leak was still present, and despite assurances it had been fixed, it was still a problem
4. He wanted to be moved and a full written response given to his complaint
5. It felt as though he was being left to live with it, a sentiment that he felt was expressed by a maintenance operative who told him “you have got more than you need”.
The landlord arranged an appointment for 27 June 2022 which the resident could not attend. A new appointment was rescheduled for 12 July 2022. On attendance, operatives noted they were not sure what had caused the leak and it needed a surveyor to inspect it.
On 11 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He said that:
1. He had emailed the landlord on the 8 June 2022 to make a complaint but had not received any response
2. He was unhappy about the amount of time it was taking to repair a leak on the roof. He first made the landlord aware of the issues in 2018 and was assured it would be resolved by 2020
3. The roof was causing mould to grow on the walls
4. He wanted the leak to be repaired or to be moved to another property.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 July 2022 and informed the resident he could expect to receive a response by 1 August 2022.
On 21 July 2022 a surveyor attended the property and carried out a survey. A copy of the survey was not seen.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. It advised that:
1. It could see the resident had reported various issues with the roof leaking, dating back to 19 December 2018. Following this report, it arranged for a repair to be completed on 18 January 2019
2. The next report of issues was on 31 October 2019. It could see that a roof specialist was required and provided a detailed report of the condition of the roof and the works needed. An instruction was given to raise repairs which were completed on 10 February 2020
3. There were no further reports from the resident until June 2022. Following this inspection, the roofing contractors advised there were issues with the tiles and guttering on the neighbouring property. As it was privately owned, permission was required to complete the works
4. On 29 July 2022 the landlord attended the neighbouring property and was able to confirm that the guttering was not allowing the rainwater to flow freely into the downpipe. The defect was repaired and the guttering was cleaned and cleared. It believed the defect was the cause of “long-standing” water ingress issues.
5. During a conversation with the resident on 1 August 2022 it was agreed that an update would be provided on a fortnightly basis. It would therefore contact the resident again the following week obtain an update and arrange for a follow up inspection
6. It was upholding the resident’s complaint. Although repair works had been completed with two years of no issues, it took nearly four years to address the matter fully
7. It was sorry for the disruption caused and acknowledged that it should have explored other possible sources sooner. In the future, it would recommend that when it received multiple reports of a leak, it would try to identify the cause sooner.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said it had missed important points which he had highlighted every time he had contacted them. He said:
1. The problem was first raised to the landlord during the viewing in August, not December 2018. His contact in December 2018 was as a result of him chasing the landlord and not the first time it became aware of the issue
2. The landlord’s response that there were no reports after January 2020 was incorrect. He had tried to complain about the matter formally in October 2020. He was given a reference number for the complaint, but he never received a response to it
3. He tried to complain again in June 2022 and the same thing happened. This left him feeling as though the landlord was not taking him seriously and had chosen not to follow its own complaint procedure
4. There were gaps in him reporting the issue to the landlord because he was convinced it was not going to do anything. The landlord did not care that he and his children had been left in damp conditions for approximately four years. His children were living in rooms that were covered in mould and attracting snails. He tried to cover up the walls with wallpaper to make it look “normal”
5. He could not remember a whole week where his daughter was not coughing. She had been submitted to hospital twice a year for the last four years, and the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously
6. The landlord’s acknowledgement that there had been “long-standing” water ingress issues demonstrated that it was well aware of the problem
7. The landlord’s conclusion that it was not sure if the problem was resolved was disappointing and he wanted his complaint escalating. He no longer believed that the issue was ever going to be solved and was not prepared to spend more time on a “never-ending” problem.
On 15 August 2022 the landlord requested that the resident clarify whether he wanted his complaint escalating. On 17 August 2022 the landlord “formally acknowledged” his request to escalate his complaint.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It had reviewed its stage one response, systems information and discussed concerns the resident had raised with colleagues
2. It could see that the first report of a leak was on 16 October 2018, two days after he moved in. It noted that the resident had informed the landlord that there was an issue upon first viewing the property, and it was sorry that it did not resolve matters before he moved in
3. Over the four year period of the tenancy, it could see that the resident had made contact on numerous occasions to chase repairs
4. It was sorry for the frustration that the resident felt where the landlord and its contractors had to attend the property on several occasions. It could see there was miscommunication where the resident had not been kept informed of what inspections were needed, and repairs were delayed
5. It fully upheld the resident’s complaint, and accepted there had been two issues with the roof, one affecting the bathroom and the other the bedroom
6. Whilst the leak in the bathroom had been fixed, it noted that the issue with the leak in the bedroom was ongoing. It apologised for the length of time it had taken and the distress it had caused
7. It would keep the resident updated by way of a weekly check-in to ensure that he remained happy with progress whilst it took steps to ensure that the problem was resolved
8. It had made contact with the letting agent for the neighbouring property to inspect the part of the roof that joined the resident’s property. It believed that the problem had already been resolved as plaster had been observed to be dry, but wanted to ensure that he did not experience further issues
9. It would try to identify any further roofing repairs within the next two weeks, after that it would make arrangements to re-do the plastering
10. It was unable to arrange a move for the resident because it believed that the repairs would be completed satisfactorily. However it had contacted the housing team so that the resident could start to bid on suitable properties via its property pool
11. As a goodwill gesture, it wanted to offer £250 for the length of time it has taken to resolve the matter. It would update him again on 20 September 2022 and would remain in contact.
On 10 October 2022 a health visitor wrote to the landlord and advised:
1. It was writing in support of housing concerns raised by the resident. It said the family had a 38 week old baby which had recent A&E attendances for respiratory conditions
2. The family had reported four years of issues with damp and mould, and it had concerns that the baby was living in a property with ongoing issues
3. It requested that the repairs were completed as soon as possible and their application for the property pool be considered
4. It included details of the NHS guidance on damp and mould and highlighted that children and babies would be more sensitive to issues.
On 12 October 2022, the landlord records note that the neighbouring landlord gave permission for the landlord to carry out works to the roof. A job was raised to replace the felt covering in the gutter box and replace the under tiling felt. It noted that it was completed on 24 October 2022.
The following day, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s repair notes stated that “the wrong works had been completed” and that an appointment needed to be arranged with a surveyor.
The landlord’s records state that a surveyor attended on 8 November 2022. A record of the visit was not seen. The roofing contractor attended on 9 November 2022 and the job was marked completed on the same day.
On 24 November 2022 a health visitor wrote to the landlord and advised that:
1. It was writing in support of housing concerns raised by the resident in relation to his 44 week old baby
2. The baby had multiple A&E attendances and had required high flow oxygen for respiratory conditions. He had a chest infection which was ongoing
3. Repairs had been reported to the landlord but had not been fully completed
4. It was providing a link to NHS guidance on how damp and mould could affect health and the immune system, particularly in babies and young children
5. It asked that repairs were completed to the property as soon as possible.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had two plasterers available to complete repairs on the weekend. The resident responded and advised that the landlord could attend on a Saturday but not the Sunday.
On 14 January 2023 the landlord attended the property to skim and finish the walls. On attendance the operative noted:
1. There was a doctors screen set up in the property and objects behind it which were covering the walls. The resident agreed to move some of the objects but not all areas were cleared
2. The resident showed the contractor a “small patch” of damp under the windowsill. The operative asked the resident if he could access the back garden to see if water was coming in from outside. The resident declined because his wife was in the kitchen and this was not possible
3. The operative removed the skirting, drilled and injected the back wall. Follow up works were raised to fit new skirting to the front bedroom and back of the living room.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord’s housing officer wrote to the resident and advised that it had received letters from the health visitor and wanted to arrange an appointment to check on progress of repair works on 27 January 2023. The resident advised he was unavailable on that date, and as he worked shifts, he could only provide available dates two weeks in advance.
On 17 January 2023, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord and advised that:
1. The resident had a one year old son who had recurrent attendances to A&E and two admissions in critical care, requiring ventilatory support because of respiratory infections
2. He continued to have very frequent flare ups of his respiratory distress, which was under further investigation
3. It understood that there was mould throughout the property including where the child slept. Whilst some efforts had been made to resolve the issue, a root cause had never been established
4. It was important that the resident’s son was protected from exposure to mould as it was likely to exacerbate his respiratory illness.
On 27 January 2023 internal correspondence was seen that advised a surveyor needed to attend the property due to the concerns raised by the GP. The landlord contacted the resident and asked him to send photographs of the mould. Once it had received this, it would make arrangements to assess the issue.
On 25 February 2023 the resident reported that he had a leaking boiler, with no heating and hot water. The landlord noted that the “contractor accepted the job” and completed it. On 5 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised he had heard nothing further about works required to his boiler and he had concerns about the safety of his children.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord’s housing officer cancelled a planned visit due to adverse weather conditions. She asked his availability over the coming weeks. The same day, a family link worker for the local authority emailed the landlord and advised:
1. She had been working with the resident and his family about outstanding repairs in the home
2. The resident’s son had been in hospital on numerous occasions for respiratory issues and had been put on high dependency oxygen. She said that the resident was scared his son was going to die
3. In addition to issues with mould, there had been a leak in the property and a broken boiler since 25 February 2023 which had not been fixed
4. The response from the housing officer about the appointment being cancelled at short notice due to the weather was “worrying and unacceptable”. The repairs were urgent, and there were serious concerns that the mould could trigger another respiratory infection for the resident’s son
5. Other members of the local authority had been in touch with the landlord but “nothing seemed to be moving forward”. The situation was unhealthy for the children and the family as a whole. The boiler needed to be fixed as a matter of urgency and all other repairs completed as soon as possible.
The landlord contacted the resident the same day and advised that the purpose of the visit that day was to discuss his property pool application, and inspect works already completed. It said it was experiencing difficulties arranging an appointment due to the resident’s schedule. The resident responded later in the day and advised:
1. He had provided availability on multiple occasions however the dates did not suit the landlord
2. Someone had been to the property within the last hour to inspect the boiler but no other work had been completed to his property with regards to the leak issues. The roof problem to the main bedroom had been fixed from the outside. However the bathroom ceiling continued to leak when there was heavy rain, despite multiple visits by the landlord
3. The kitchen ceiling continued to leak if there was any water spilt in the bathroom
4. The painting that was done in the property last year was ruined because the leaks were ongoing
5. Mould was reappearing in different places throughout the house despite his best efforts. He had kept the heating on for most of the day and the windows open. He was getting high energy bills as a result. He had requested for the mould to be treated but this was never done
6. The wall in the living room was open and ready for injection of the damp proof course (DPC).
On 15 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to update him on a visit that took place on 13 March 2023. It said that:
1. The rear living room DPC injections had been completed on one wall. A further wall needed to be completed and a job had been raised for this. Once a two week drying period had taken place, the skirting boards could be replaced
2. The bathroom “was not water tight” and any spillages needed to be mopped up as soon as they occurred. A job had been raised to look at a possible leak in the ceiling and remove a small amount of mould
3. An appointment had been scheduled for 6 April 2023 to review the skirting board in the front bedroom
4. Once the two week drying out period for the DPC had passed, a new appointment would be arranged to inspect the property.
On 16 March 2023 a senior surveyor from the roofing contractors attended the property. The report noted that:
1. Issues in the bathroom were due to condensation with mould to the ceiling and on the wall below the sink. The bathroom contained a tumble dryer which was contributing to humidity levels
2. There was damp to the lower wall in the ground floor room. On inspection of the eaves to the main roof it was noted that there was a gap between the eave roof tiles and the gutter. It noted that the issue would allow excessive water to run down the walls
3. The property was flagged as medium risk, with further maintenance work required. Additional follow up works were required to:
  1. Thermal bridging and insulation to the outrigger eaves
  2. Strip the eave where there was a gap between the roof tiles and the gutter, and fit eave support trays
  3. Instruct a damp specialist to assess the humidity controls and ventilation in the property.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that he would be contacted directly by the roof contractors about the follow up works identified on 16 March 2023. The supporting letters for his property pool application had been received and would be discussed with a manager the following week.
On 11 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord and his family link worker that:
1. His son had a chest cough and a blocked nose “most of the time”
2. No updates had been given in respect of his banding to the property pool
3. An operative from the landlord had attended to complete the repair in the main bedroom, but refused to do it because it needed more than the hour that had been booked for him
4. He had been given a “sorry we missed you” card which he refused to accept because he hadn’t missed the appointment. He was available for the appointment but the operative had refused to complete the job.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident and advised that it would require access to erect scaffolding. A text message was later sent to the resident to confirm that scaffolding would be erected on 12 May 2023.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord visited the resident. Notes from the visit stated:
1. The resident allowed entry but it had to wait some time before being allowed in the house
2. All dates for follow on repair jobs were confirmed. The resident said he was not consulted about the dates, but it was explained they were all booked in and if he needed to rearrange them, he could contact the customer services team
3. It explained to the resident that the operative who attended the property but could not complete the job had reported that he was “aggressive”. The resident explained that he acted out of frustration, and felt aggrieved he had been given a “sorry we missed you” card when he was available for the appointment
4. Follow up works had been raised to attend to the mould in the bathroom and arranged for the following day.
On 29 April 2023 the resident responded to the landlord having been informed of the outcome of his lower banding for the property pool. He explained that:
1. He had been experiencing the same issue for four years. The schedule of works he had been provided over the last week was not the first time he had been assured jobs would be completed, and it wouldn’t be the last
2. The issue had been the “most difficult I have ever encountered”
3. He felt that the treatment was unfair and felt like discrimination
4. He wanted a review of the decision.
On 2 May 2023 the resident informed the landlord that his son was back in hospital with a chest infection. It was the fifth time he had been in hospital in less than eight months.
On 12 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that nobody had turned up for the appointment to erect scaffolding scheduled for that day. He said that he realised that his family “did not meet the landlord’s criteria” and but it was not possible for it to reattend his property randomly, and he needed appointment schedules to be honoured.
On 15 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said that the scaffolders turned up unannounced.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord advised this Service that:
1. From November 2022 it had been working with the resident and its contractors to identify and resolve the water ingress issues
2. A recent leak was reported in the bathroom. It had investigated this and believed that the issue was caused by water over flowing when the children were having a bath
3. Works to the DPC had been identified however it had been unable to complete the works due to difficulties in gaining access to the resident’s property. It attended in January 2023 to complete works to one wall but due to the residents religious beliefs, it could not access all areas because of a screen allowing his wife to move between rooms.
4. New appointments have been scheduled for 14 and 21 July 2023 to complete works to the DPC and skim the walls. Once the plaster has tried, a further appointment has been scheduled for 26 July 2023 to renew the skirting boards. No further works are planned
5. The resident is only able to give his availability up to a maximum of a two week period and is often restricted with time windows. Its operatives have tried to attend on the weekends and over the resident’s lunch breaks to accommodate the resident as much as possible
6. It acknowledged that there was a delay in identifying the owner of the neighbouring property. However once this was established, works commenced and there were no reports of issues with the roof since. There was no current mould in the resident’s property
7. During the course of its investigation into the stage two complaint, it has had several conversations with the resident to understand the nature of the issues and discussed solutions. Regular contact with the resident had been maintained.
In recent contact with this Service, the resident has advised that:
1. Damp and mould in his property is ongoing, and has affected multiple rooms. He has followed all of the landlord’s advice about keeping windows open and monitoring humidity levels
2. Works to the bathroom were completed last year but the living room works are outstanding and his youngest child has moved into his sibling’s room because of ongoing concerns with damp in one of the bedrooms
3. Whilst the landlord did part of the works to the living room wall earlier in the year, it took it a further three months to reschedule works and reattend in July. During this time he had been informed to keep his children away from the exposed part of the wall, which is why he erected a doctor’s screen to protect them. He has no faith in the landlord to complete the works to an appropriate standard, given his experience over the last five years
4. He has serious concerns about the health of his children who have had frequent A&E attendance for respiratory conditions, particularly over the winter months
5. The landlord’s complaint process has been terrible and it was a struggle to get the matter addressed formally. The stage two response offered no resolution and he is suffering from the same issues over six months later
6. He has been left feeling discriminated against by the landlord because is family are from a minority background. He remembers specific examples which made him feel this way. These include:
  1. An operative informing him that he “has more than he needs”, which he took to imply that his family did not deserve what had been offered to them. He had informed the landlord of this comment when he made the complaint in June 2022
  2. He felt that he was being accused of lying in all of his communication with the landlord. When he has reported repairs, the landlord has questioned him and asked him “what have you done?”
  3. Every time someone new from the landlord attends the property he is asked about his status in the UK, how he left his homeland and how he got into the country. It is traumatising to talk about without understanding the rationale for the questions
  4. Following the stage two response, he advised the landlord he didn’t complain to get money as his main concern was the health of his family. However where it has taken no steps to address these concerns and prioritise his family, he has been left feeling “that we are different and so our treatment will be different”
7. He has lost trust in the landlord completely. He feels that the disrepair he has experienced has not been taken into consideration when reviewing his banding for a new property
8. The situation has caused a decline in his mental health. He struggles to sleep and has had to take time off work. His children are frequently crying. They experience vomiting and respiratory issues which he believes to be directly related to the damp and wants to move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several leaks in the property, causing damp and mould

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident significant distress as he has experienced leaks, damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on the health of his children. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records show that it has been aware of concerns about leaks and resulting damp and mould in the property since 2017. The resident said he raised concerns about damp during a viewing that took place in August 2018, three months before he moved into the property. The landlord was responsible for ensuring that the historic issues had been fully addressed in the void period and before the resident moved in. However, it has been unable to demonstrate that it recorded or actioned the concerns the resident raised during the viewing. A separate assessment has been made which reviews the landlord’s record keeping.
When the resident reported the damp two days after moving into the property in October 2018, he reported that the walls were “wet to the touch”. The landlord raised a “routine repair” which was inappropriate given that the resident reported that the leak was excessive to the extent water could be seen dripping onto the floor. He also raised that he had concerns about his young daughter, which the landlord did not respond to or address.
The landlord recorded that works were raised to repair the felt roof and completed on January 2019. No records were seen that it reattended the property to inspect or monitor the effectiveness of its repair, but no further reports of issues were recorded for approximately ten months. When the resident reported to the landlord that the roof continued to leak in November 2019, records demonstrate it attended promptly on the same day to re-inspect.
The landlord identified that the issue on the roof appeared to be caused by problems with a neighbouring property, which was not owned by the landlord. It was the landlord’s responsibility to rectify issues with the roof of the resident’s property and make efforts to contact the neighbouring landlord. However the landlord took no ownership of the issue and it was inappropriate that it put the onus on the resident to contact the neighbour himself to discuss problems with the roofing. The resident challenged the landlord on this point, but no response to him was seen.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident that only if the leak appeared elsewhere in his property, would it attend again to conduct a full inspection of the inside of his home. The resident was left to live with the leak from the front bedroom with no solution or plan of action in place. The landlord failed to recognise the urgency in establishing contact with the landlord for the neighbouring property. Whilst it is accepted it experienced difficulties in obtaining details for the neighbouring landlord, no attempts at contact were seen until September 2022. It is not reasonable that it took approximately 33 months for it to acquire this information and make arrangements to carry out the repairs with permission from the neighbouring landlord.
The resident experienced difficulties when he reported a further roof leak in July 2020. He was assured that the matter was referred to its roofing contactors and they would be in touch directly. When this did not happen, the resident experienced time and trouble in obtaining a response from the landlord and had to seek support from the local council. It was not until October 2020 and in response to “repairs complaints” did the landlord make further arrangements to complete remedial works. The works were completed in December 2020, five months after the resident’s report in July and significantly outside of the timescale that could be expected within the landlord’s repair policy.
The resident reported issues with his bathroom leaking into his kitchen in August 2021. When he reported the issue out of hours, he said that the leak happened when his bath was emptied. The landlord gave appropriate initial advice not to use the bath until the matter was investigated, but put the onus on the resident to contact the landlord again, marking his communication as “deferred – not urgent”. To defer the matter was inappropriate and it was unreasonable that the resident had to continue to chase the landlord on several occasions until the landlord completed the repair in April 2022, eight months later. The delay was significant and contributed to the resident’s feeling that the situation with water ingress was not being taken seriously.
The resident contacted the landlord in June 2022 to chase an update to the leak from the neighbouring property. In response, the landlord sent an operative to attend the property to inspect who in turn advised that a surveyor was required. The delay in sending an appropriately qualified surveyor at an earlier stage, particularly given the history of the leak was not appropriate and contributed to the resident’s frustration. Detail of the surveyor’s visit that followed in July 2022 was not seen, but it is clear that its remedial works to clean and clear the gutters were not sufficient to stop the water ingress to the resident’s property. As a result, the resident was left with water ingress issues over a prolonged period of time.
Evidence shows that the landlord has been aware that there have been substantial issues with water ingress at various points within the property, which have resulted in damp and mould. This is evidenced in the significant remedial works the landlord has raised, including most recently to the DPC. However there is little evidence of specialist damp contractors or surveyors reports which prompted these works, despite requests from this Service to provide these.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Contrary to the landlord’s self-assessment on damp and mould, no evidence was seen that the situation was given any form of a risk scoring until a surveyor for the roofing contractor marked it as ‘medium’. His report dated 16 March 2023 was of particular significance because it highlighted that there were considerable structural issues and damp concerns, consistent with what the resident had been repeatedly informing the landlord. The lack of a recommended specialist damp report and accompanying risk assessment, is of serious concern. Without it, it is unclear how the landlord intends to assess what actions it needs to take to monitor the property in line with its HHSRS obligations.
Various health professionals notified the landlord that there were serious concerns over exposure to mould and the health and safety of the resident’s young children. There was a significant concern given the respiratory condition of the resident’s son in particular. Having seen news reports of a young boy dying because of exposure to damp and mould with a similar condition to that of his son, the resident said he was worried his son was going to die under similar circumstances. This concern was echoed by the resident’s family link worker in communication with the landlord on 10 March 2023. No evidence was seen that the landlord was proactive in its response, or that it made any attempt to mitigate the worry that the resident had in this regard. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 2 May 2023 that it was the fifth time his son had been in hospital in eight months with a chest infection, showing a lack of empathy towards the resident.
The ongoing issues with damp and mould has caused the resident significant distress and impacted the whole family. The resident has said that his children have had to sleep in different rooms to escape the mould, and his sleep has been affected through worrying. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it responded to these specific concerns which has left the resident feeling as though he is being “treated differently”. No evidence was seen that the landlord considered whether a temporary decant was appropriate to access all areas of the property to complete remedial works as soon as possible.
From evidence seen, the resident’s request to increase his banding for a priority move was declined on the basis that all the remedial works would be completed, as explained in the landlord’s stage two response in September 2022. Given that ten months later remedial works remain outstanding, and in the absence of a specialist damp survey, an order has been made to reconsider the medical evidence it has been provided and review the resident’s request for a move.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould actively discourages inference or blame on residents for causing damp within their home. On 15 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the bathroom was not “water tight”, and noted it believed that the leak was a result of the way that the resident bathed his children. This response was inappropriate. It is reasonable to expect that a bathroom would be water tight and sufficient not to leak when children are having a bath. An order has been made for the landlord to attend the property and provide a full response of its investigations into the bathroom leak.
There is no evidence that the family discussed their religious beliefs with the landlord, however the landlord has said it has impacted its ability to access all areas of the property. From evidence seen, the resident has been reasonable in his requests with regards to appointments. He made it clear that he required notice and detail of appointments so that he could appropriately prepare for visits. The landlord has been unable to evidence that it provided the resident with full information as to what access was required for its visits. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord has tried to be flexible with weekend and lunchtime appointments, it is unreasonable that it has commented that delays in completing remedial works are in some way linked to the resident’s religious beliefs, as noted in its correspondence with this Service on 26 May 2023.
It is not disputed by the landlord that it has taken over four years to resolve leaks in the property, and remedial works remain outstanding to date. The landlord has advised it has maintained regular contact with the resident since November 2022, however contemporaneous notes of conversations with the resident have not been seen and he has disputed that this is the case. Though the resident has advised communication has improved, he has said there was a gap of approximately three months between January and March 2023 where the landlord did not make any contact to complete the remaining DPC works. The ongoing delay in concluding the works is unreasonable and has contributed to the resident’s distress where he has valid concerns about the impact on his young family.
Overall there were significant failures in the landlord promptly addressing the leaks and associated damp and mould in the property since the start of the resident’s tenancy. It has shown a lack of empathy to the resident’s concerns about his young family and has apportioned blame for recent delays in completing remedial works on the resident. When the landlord reviewed the situation within its stage two response, it made assurances that the resident did not require a move because matters would be resolved imminently. However over six months later, remedial works remain outstanding and the recommended specialist damp report referred to on 16 March 2023 has not been seen.
The landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation was not sufficient to put matters right for the resident. The Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which takes into account the circumstances of the case, the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The resident’s current rent is £105.04 per week. The property compromises five rooms – two bedrooms, a bathroom, living room and the kitchen. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s full enjoyment of his home has been curtailed and has ordered compensation as follows:
1. The landlord should pay the resident 20% of the current rental amount for the period following his report of a leak on 17 October 2018
2. The date of this report amounts to 247 weeks
3. Therefore compensation for the delayed repairs to fully resolve the leak and associated damp and mould totals £5,187.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes it clear that landlord’s must make it easy for residents to complain. In this case, the resident experienced difficulties in getting the landlord to investigate his concerns promptly in October 2020, and his initial concerns went unanswered despite support from the local council at the time. The failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint was unreasonable. It contributed to the resident’s distress and feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
The resident had to chase the landlord for a response again following another complaint made on 6 June 2022, causing him further inconvenience. A stage one response followed on 5 August 2022, 22 working days later and significantly outside of the timescale a response could have been expected in line with its complaint policy. The landlord made an apology for this delay which was appropriate, but it failed to acknowledge his contact in October 2020.
The stage one response sought to set out all that the resident was dissatisfied with. However it’s investigations into the matter were insufficient as it provided incorrect detail as to how long the resident had been reporting the issue. The landlord also failed to look at the resident’s repair history holistically. It focussed solely on the leak on the roof, and did not make reference to the leak which affected his kitchen. Both leaks contributed to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and caused him significant distress.
Whilst the landlord recognised that its service fell below the standard that could be expected to investigate water ingress issues, it failed to put matters right for the resident. The landlord said it had learnt from the complaint and as a resolution it would recommend that where multiple instances of leaks were reported, it would explore all possible sources to identify the root cause. However it failed to address the impact on the resident’s family, how it intended to tackle the issue of damp and mould as a result of the leak, and did not give the resident confidence that it had recognised the full extent of its complaint handling failures.
The resident had further difficulties escalating the matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. He made it clear to the landlord in his correspondence of 5 August 2022 that he “wanted the complaint escalating”. The landlord responded asking for clarification if he wanted to escalate his complaint. This caused the resident evident frustration where he felt he was not being listened to and his concerns not taken seriously.
The landlord made reference to a telephone call made to the resident on 13 September 2022, to discuss his ongoing concerns. A record of the conversation was not seen but it is clear that the resident’s ultimate resolution was for the repairs to be completed and for his family to be moved. A final response followed eight working days after the timeframe that could be expected within its complaint policy. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from previous mistakes and repeated delays in providing the resident with a response to his concerns.
The landlord concluded that the resident’s complaint should be upheld on the grounds that it had not recognised that there were two leaks affecting the property which had been unresolved for four years. In putting matters right for the resident, the Code explains that the landlord must carefully manage resident’s expectations and not promise anything that cannot be delivered. In this case, the landlord assured the resident that it was confident that he did not need to move home because the imminent remedial works would resolve the issue. However over six months later, the remedial works are outstanding.
The landlord has failed to complete the remedial works within a reasonable timeframe and failed to review whether as a result it could assist the resident further with a move. Its offer of £250 failed to recognise the extent of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family, both in the handling of his reports of a leak and in bringing his complaint.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in October 2020. When it accepted the resident’s complaint in June 2020, the landlord failed to investigate the matter fully and did not address the resident’s main concern which was the safety of his family. The landlord’s responses lacked empathy and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced in bringing his complaint.

Record keeping

Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. Whilst the landlord’s records make reference to technical officer and surveyor visits which took place around 28 November 2019, 21 July 2022 and 8 November 2022, no record of reports from these visits were seen. This has limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate it had comprehensively surveyed the property in line with its HHSRS obligations.
If information is not created and stored correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied upon. The landlord’s complaint responses refer to weekly contact with the resident. The landlord says that it has kept in touch with the resident regularly, particularly since November 2022 and has had lengthy conversations to “discuss solutions”. The resident disputes this. Where this Service was not provided with comprehensive call notes, the landlord could not demonstrate that it honoured its commitment to the resident nor evidence what in depth discussions took place.
Overall gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord failed to act quickly to the resident’s complaints of leaks and associated damp and mould. The landlord was not proactive in seeking resolutions in line with its HHSRS obligations and failed to effectively communicate with the resident. A senior roofing surveyor did not attend the property until approximately four years after the first report and no evidence has been seen that the landlord has instructed a damp specialist as per the recommendations made on 16 March 2023. The landlord has apportioned blame on the resident for causing water to flood the kitchen whilst bathing his children and has suggested that his religious beliefs have impacted its ability to complete remedial works within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord failed to apply the key principles of the Code of “Be fair, Learn from Outcomes, Put matters right”. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in October 2020. When it addressed the matter as part of its formal complaint process in 2022, it failed to address all elements of the complaint, and its responses lacked empathy to the resident’s situation. Its offer of £250 in compensation did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience the family experienced. Furthermore, it failed to confidently conclude matters in its stage two response, and remedial works remain outstanding.
There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It was unable to demonstrate that it had kept contemporaneous notes of its interactions with the resident. There was missing information from surveyors reports which hindered its ability to demonstrate what actions it had taken and why.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive should apologise to the resident in person, within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £6,437 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
1. £5,187 to reflect the rent reduction figure noted in paragraph 76 of this report
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated damp and mould in the property
3. £250 for the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to arrange for a damp specialist to attend the property to inspect and identify any further remedial works, within four weeks.
If remedial works are identified from the specialist damp report mentioned above, then they are completed within a further four weeks.
The landlord to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of discrimination originally referenced within his complaint correspondence dated 8 June 2022, within four weeks. The investigation should be conducted by persons independent of the teams involved, and the outcome reported to the governing body.
The landlord to review the circumstances surrounding the resident’s request for a move and provide a written response to its decision, within four weeks.
The landlord carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within six weeks. The review must include:
1. An explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
2. A review of its procedures in relation to record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
3. Confirmation of its strategy for handling damp and mould including, with regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould and include:
  1. Response times to damp and mould reports, and formal hazard assessments for every inspection
  2. How damp and mould identified during the void process will be managed – this should be echoed in the landlord’s void standard and policy
  3. Consideration of when a management move or transfer to alternative accommodation may be required, whether permanently or on a temporary basis whilst work is undertaken – this should be included in the relevant policy.
The landlord to report back on its intentions regarding the recommendations below, within four weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the Code and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction guidance.