Sanctuary Housing Association (202003183)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003183

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 February 2021


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident first reported damp in his property on 11 December 2019 along with various other repair issues for which he had raised a separate complaint. He gave four dates in January 2020 that he could accommodate an appointment. The landlord initially raised a repair appointment for 27 January 2020 but the contractor was unable to attend the appointment, and on 14 January 2020 the landlord told the resident that its contractor would make contact to schedule a new appointment.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor subsequently attended the property on 30 January 2020. On 7 February 2020 the surveyor emailed the resident about the repairs. They confirmed that an appointment had been booked for 10 February 2020 during which a number of repairs would be looked at and further inspected, including the damp and mould issue.
  3. Records of the inspection findings have not been provided but correspondence between the landlord and resident indicate that the surveyor confirmed during the inspections that the mould was caused by condensation. The surveyor also confirmed that the landlord would treat the mould in the bedrooms and that the resident would need to wipe the affected areas regularly and heat/ventilate the property appropriately. An order to treat the mould was subsequently raised on 26 February.
  4. On 20 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord raising concerns about the suitability of the property due to its size and condition, particularly given that his partner was due to give birth shortly. He stated that he had applied to move property and intended to place a bid on a nearby property when it became available. He asked the landlord to support him with this.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 2 March 2020. One of the issues he referred to was the damp treatment that had been carried out in his kitchen. He said this had dried and split the paint, which was now falling off the wall. He advised that since this treatment was due to take place in each room, the whole property would need redecorating and he was unwilling to carry out this further work as he intended to move from the property. He also said that he had found mould on the clothes kept in the cupboard. He stated that he would be approaching the local authority’s Environmental Health department for assistance.
  6. In response the landlord said that it had written a supporting statement in relation to the resident’s request to move and would be willing to write another. In relation to the mould it said that it was not unusual to get mould on clothes in wardrobes due to the low air circulation in these areas. It said that the large number of items in the property would be contributing to the problem. It recommended that the resident opened the doors to allow for better air circulation and heated the room to prevent damp, in addition to wiping the affecting areas and items.
  7. On 3 March 2020 the landlord noted that it had called the resident to book the mould treatment works however the resident advised that he did not feel the works would be sufficient. Therefore, the works were cancelled.
  8. On 16 April an Environmental Health officer contacted the landlord about various matters including the damp and mould issue and confirmed there were hazards in the property. They said that there was both structural and condensation damp affecting the property. They said the structural damp was affecting the children’s bedroom wall and ceiling, which they believed the landlord had in hand, and the condensation could be linked to poor thermal efficiency. It said the structural damp needed to be identified, repaired and made good, and the level of insulation confirmed and topped up to current standards if necessary.
  9. In response the landlord noted that an order had already been raised to remedy the structural damp. In relation to the insulation, it believed this was to current standards but it would check this. It noted that it was still only able to attend emergency repairs due to the coronavirus pandemic so was unable to check the insulation at that time.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 May 2020 advising that he would be leaving the property as a result of the report compiled by Environmental Health which classified the damp and mould as a borderline category one hazard. He said that the local authority had assessed his housing application as band B priority. He stated that due to the number of issues he had experienced, he was unwilling to give the required four-week notice period and pay rent for the entire notice period.
  11. The landlord called the resident on 11 May 2020 to confirm that it would not waive the four-week notice period as this was a clause included in the tenancy agreement. The resident confirmed that he wished to raise a complaint about the delays in dealing with the damp and mould issue. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and noted that the resident should receive a response within ten working days, although this may take longer due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 May 2020 and apologised for the delays in completing the works to remedy the damp. It noted that there had been a delay between 12 December 2019, when the damp and mould issue was reported, and 3 March 2020, when the resident advised that he did not wish for the work to go ahead. It asked the resident if he wanted the works to go ahead once the coronavirus restrictions had lifted. It stated that it would also consider a gesture of goodwill payment for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced once the matter had been addressed.
  13. The resident responded on the same day and stated that the previous mould treatment had caused the paint to peel from the wall, leaving bare plaster. He explained that he wished for a significant reduction in rent during this period as he had put time and effort into the property with no resolution. He stated that he had been allocated an alternative property and had handed in his notice on 11 May 2020.
  14. On 20 May 2020 the landlord called the resident to query if he wanted to arrange the mould treatment works. In response the resident confirmed that he was moving out of the property on 7 June.
  15. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2020 and offered £125 compensation in recognition of the delays and serious inconvenience he had experienced. This concluded the landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident.
  16. On 21 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation. He stated that the damp and mould had ruined multiple items of clothing and resulted in his family moving from the area. In order to keep his family and newborn daughter safe, they had been staying at a family member’s home due to the damp and mould. He stated that an amount in line with the previous offer of compensation of £800, made in relation to his separate complaint, would be more acceptable due to the outstanding repair issues in the property and the inconvenience of moving.
  17. The landlord sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on 26 May 2020 and stated that he would receive a response within 20 working days. It advised that due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, this may take longer.
  18. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2020 and stated the following:
    1. The resident had reported the damp and mould on 11 December 2019 along with various other repair issues. A repair appointment had been raised for 27 January 2020 but the contractor had been unable to attend this appointment due to unforeseen circumstances. An appointment was rearranged for 3 February 2020 during which various works were agreed or were already in progress. It offered a temporary decant to enable the repairs to the bedroom ceiling to go ahead but this was declined.
    2. In relation to the mould treatment works, the repairs department first attempted to contact the resident on 2 March 2020. The resident called back on 3 March 2020 and explained that he no longer wished for the treatment works to be completed as he did not feel that the proposed treatment would work. The works were then cancelled. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 23 March 2020 about the damp and mould. At this stage, the landlord was only able to carry out emergency repairs due to the coronavirus pandemic and it was unable to rebook the works.
    3. It was sorry that the initial repair appointment had been outside of its 28-day non-emergency repair timescale and that the follow-on works were also not completed in a timely manner. The mould treatment was cancelled following the resident’s instruction on 3 March 2020 and although he had contacted the landlord again later the same month, its repairs service had moved to emergency repairs only at that time.
    4. As the damp works were cancelled on 3 March 2020, it had considered the period of time between reporting the damp and mould and the works being cancelled. It stated that it was unable to consider the further report later in March because non-emergency works had been suspended due to circumstances outside its control. It would like to offer a total amount of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. 
    5. It had an internal guide regarding compensation payments and any complaint received was considered on an individual basis with reference to the guidance. As the reports of damp and mould were different to the issues the resident experienced with the garden, it was not appropriate to compare the compensation offers that had been made. The property was not uninhabitable and the resident had not lost the use of any rooms due to the damp and mould concerns.

Assessment and findings

Repairing responsibilities

  1. Section 2.1(e) of the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairing obligations. This confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair; this includes carrying out repairs to stop water entering the property causing penetrating damp. The landlord’s contractual repairing responsibilities are further defined by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which also requires it, amongst other things, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. Section 3.1(l)(ii) of the tenancy agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for ensuring that all rooms in the property are properly ventilated to help prevent condensation, and for wiping down and cleaning any surfaces when necessary to prevent mould building up.

Assessment

  1. The resident first reported the damp and mould issue on 11 December 2019. In response the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 30 January 2020, during which they identified that the mould was caused by condensation and gave advice to the resident on how to help prevent the mould. Following the inspection, on 26 February 2020, the landlord raised an order to treat the mould.
  2. The landlord first attempted to book the works in on 2 March 2020 but the resident advised the landlord the following day that he no longer wanted the works to go ahead due to his concerns about how effective they would be. Therefore, the works were cancelled at this time and have not gone ahead. Whilst the resident has referred to damp treatment works being carried out in his kitchen, it appears that these works did not form part of the order raised on 26 February 2020.
  3. Therefore, there was a period of almost three months between the resident first reporting the damp and mould issue and the landlord arranging the works. Accordingly, the landlord significantly exceeded its repair policy which confirms that non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days.
  4. However, in its final response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that up to £50 will be offered for the failure to complete a repair within published timescales, and a monthly payment of up to £50 for the duration of the delay will be offered for inconvenience. There was a delay of around two months in arranging the works, and therefore, the landlord’s compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy.
  5. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of its surveyor and conclude that the mould was being caused by condensation. The findings of Environmental Health also supported this. Whilst the Environmental Health Officer referred to structural damp affecting the children’s bedroom, the landlord’s records confirm that the damp in this room had been caused by a water leak, which had been resolved. There is nothing to suggest that the mould in the other rooms was being caused by rising or penetrating damp.
  6. The landlord was not obliged by the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement or Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act to take steps to remedy the condensation. However, the landlord was required to consider whether the mould amounted to a hazard as defined by the HHSRS and whether it needed to take any steps to reduce it. The evidence indicates that the landlord did consider its responsibilities in this regard as it agreed to carry out mould treatment works. Furthermore, the only advice given by the Environmental Health Officer in relation to the mould issue was that the landlord needed to check the insulation in the property. The landlord confirmed that it would do so but was unable to do this until the Coronavirus restrictions had been lifted.
  7. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about the effectiveness of the mould treatment works on several occasions. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of its surveyor in this regard and therefore the Ombudsman is satisfied that the proposed works were reasonable in the circumstances. However, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about this matter, particularly in regard to the damp works that had been carried out in the kitchen, and it would have been helpful if it had done so.
  8. The landlord was under no requirement to compensate the resident for damage to his family’s clothing. Landlords would normally only be expected to compensate tenants for damage to their belongings due to mould in instances where the problem resulted from disrepair, such as a failure to remedy a water leak, and there is no suggestion that this was the case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of the reports about damp and mould satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has responded appropriately to the reports by inspecting the property, diagnosing the cause of the mould and arranging for mould treatment works to be carried out. Whilst there was a delay in the landlord arranging the mould treatment works, the landlord has taken steps to put this right by apologising and offering a reasonable amount of compensation in line with its compensation policy.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offers its award of £150 to the resident if this has not been paid already.