Sanctuary Housing Association (202004462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004462

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property leading up to 2017.
2. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property from 2018.
The Ombudsman has also investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”), the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property leading up to 2017.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme provides:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

It is acknowledged that the resident says that she had reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord on a number of occasions, dating back to 1995. However, with the passage of time, it becomes harder to investigate events and to make findings that are accurate. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, this investigation will focus on events from six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint being made.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder of the property.
The lease agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for keeping the internal plasterwork, the ceiling up to the joists, and the walls in “good and substantial repair”. This agreement further confirms the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the structure of the building containing the flat, including the external walls and the roof.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure provides for two categories of repairs: emergency repairs, which should be attended within 24 hours, this would include a “water leak coming through the ceiling”; and appointed repairs, which are non-emergency repairs which require access to the property. Routine repairs are to be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will not address an issue as a complaint if it concerns a matter which occurred longer than six months, and which had not previously been reported. This procedure provides for a two-stage complaints process with a response to the resident to be provided “normally within five to ten days” and for contact to be maintained to advise of progress. At the final stage of the process, it is to provide a written response “usually within 20 working days”.
The landlord’s compensation guidance provides for payments of £25 for cases of serious inconvenience or failing to follow procedure.

Summary of events

The resident complained to the landlord on 19 September 2018. In her correspondence, she explained that she had experienced persistent damp and mould issues since July 1995. She added that the landlord’s surveyors had inspected the property in April, June and 14 November 2017. The resident was unhappy with the results of the inspections as she felt that “nothing further [had] been done to further investigate or rectify the problem”.
The resident noted that the landlord had acknowledged that damp and mould in two of the rooms could be attributed to a leak but not the third room affected. She relayed that she had received an offer from it to carry out a mould wash of the third room as a “goodwill offer” after it had surveyed the roof, but nothing else had been offered for the other two. She added that she had not received a response to her request for the result of the roof survey and details of the investigation of the damp. The resident said that she believed more investigation was needed and that the problem lay “in the fabric of the building”.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 25 September 2018. It said:
1. It was sorry to read of the problems the resident had been experiencing; however, it could only investigate issues that had been reported within the last six months.
2. It noted that works had been carried out to repair the gutters, and these were completed in April 2018. It asked the resident to advise if she was continuing to notice a water ingress, so that it could investigate this further.
3. any ‘making good’ works associated with the damp and mould would be the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder.

Further comments were provided in relation to other matters which the resident has raised; and the landlord offered £25 as a goodwill gesture in respect of problems with the door entry system.

After speaking with the resident on 2 October 2018, the landlord asked her to provide two quotes for making good works for its consideration, suggesting that she obtain these once any necessary repair had been completed.
The resident responded on 3 October to express her dissatisfaction with the overall complaint response. The resident explained that the week before, an operative of the landlord’s contractor had been called out in relation to the roof. She said that whilst he was on site, she asked him to look at some of the issues within the property. The resident said that he expressed his opinion that a lack of insulation in the loft area could be a possible cause of the problem; and that he would send a full report to the landlord for further consideration. The resident added that whilst the landlord had offered £25 compensation within the stage one response, she considered that further compensation was due.
The landlord confirmed on 4 October that it was waiting for the contractor to provide a quote for the roof works; and once this was received, it would submit the works for urgent approval. With regards to the compensation request, the landlord said that it would readdress the situation once it had received a quotation for the roof.
On 23 October, the landlord confirmed that the operatives would be contacting the resident directly so that the roof and the property could be assessed for water ingress. On 29 October, the landlord updated the resident following the contractors attendance. It said that the contractors had cleared the box gutters and inspected the roof, but could find no areas of damage that would cause a water ingress into the flat. The landlord said that the contractors had expressed their opinion that the damp and mould within the property was the result of consideration within the flat and not down to any defects with the roof.
The resident replied to the landlord on 29 October 2018 to dispute its position, stating that, in her conversation with its contractor, it had been raised that a lack of insulation in the loft area was suggested a cause of the damp and mould she had reported. The resident added that the contractors had found cracks in the pointing of the roof area when they first visited and that they had fixed this. The resident asked the landlord to confirm why no jobs had been raised in relation to the insulation. The next day, the resident emailed again to request a copy of the contractor’s report.
The landlord replied to the resident on 1 November 2018 to advise that it was unable to provide the requested report but that it was making arrangements to install loft insulation.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 7 December 2018 that loft insulation works had been carried out on either 30 November or 3 December 2018. The landlord explained that they had accessed to area from above. The landlord asked the resident to advice what she was seeking a resolution so that the matter could be moved forward.
The resident replied on 7 December to confirm the works had taken place. The resident also referred to the landlord’s request for quotes to treat, clean and make good the areas damaged by the damp and mould. She confirmed that the quote would be forwarded in due course.
Within further correspondence from the landlord on 10 December, the resident was reminded about providing quotes for the making good works. It explained that the complaint would be closed if it did not receive anything further.
The resident replied to the landlord on 3 January 2019 asking for her complaint to be kept open as she was yet to obtain quotes for making good works. She said that the mould treatment proposed by the landlord, after its inspection in November 2017, had yet to be completed. The resident said that this would need to take place before she would obtain quotes for making good the damage. In return, the landlord advised that this could be considered further upon the provision of photographs which the resident had previously offered to provide.
The resident subsequently provided the landlord with photographs; and on 24 January 2019, the landlord advised the resident that both the mould treatment and making good works were her responsibility as the leaseholder, but upon receipt of two quotes for the cost of these, it “would consider this”.
On 5 February 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that damp and mould was still an issue in her third bedroom which affected the two exterior walls. She believed that this was not “purely” because of condensation and could not confirm that the damp and mould reported in the other two bedrooms had been resolved as the mould had yet to be treated and removed. The resident contended that a detailed investigation was required to “get to the bottom of the problem”.
The landlord asked the resident again on 7 March 2019 for two quotes for the cost of making good works within the bedroom as a priority to enable it to resolve the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 8 March 2019, asserting that she was unable to obtain quotes for making good works as the landlord had yet to treat the affected areas. She added that she had attended its repairs surgery on 5 February 2019 where it had been “agreed” that investigation of the source of damp and mould needed to be carried out on the interior and exterior of the property. The resident added that she would be unavailable until 14 April 2019 as she would be out of the country visiting a member of family who was unwell.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. In further correspondence on 15 and 18 March 2019 – in relation to the corridor ceiling – the landlord said that it was still waiting to receive quotes from the resident for the making good works.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 12 April 2019. In this, it said:
1. The inspection of the roof in 2018 found no evidence of a defect and its investigation had found that the damp and mould was a result of condensation.
2. It had enclosed a leaflet for preventing and tackling consideration within the home.
3. Matters relating to the damp and mould were not its responsibility. It added that no further investigations would be carried out unless it was provided with new information.
The landlord noted that it had continued to request quotes from the resident for making good works, despite the outcome of its inspection in October 2018, and had done so until March 2019. It was “disappointed” that it had not informed her that it would not take responsibility for making good works resulting from the reported damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged that this could have created an “unrealistic expectation” that it would reimburse re-decoration costs and apologised for this. It offered compensation of £25 for not clarifying the liability for the repair and £50 for the five months in which it continued to ask the resident for quotes for the making good works.
The landlord offered an additional £125 compensation for issues not included in the complaint brought to this Service. The landlord advised that the resident was welcome to discuss the matter further with it; however, it said that if it did not receive a response within 20 working days, the complaint would be closed and the resident could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident responded to the landlord on 11 June 2019. She said that condensation was not the cause of the “persistent” damp she had experienced. She noted that the roof had been inspected “several times” but she had not been provided any reports of these findings. The resident said that in her opinion, the cause of the damp was a structural issue which she felt was “likely the brickwork or pointing”. She insisted that more detailed investigation was required and highlighted that it was suggested that the previously “inadequate” loft insulation was a possible cause of the damp and mould.
In response, the landlord advised that the repair issues were “for the local maintenance teams to progress”. However, on investigating the complaint it was satisfied that as an organisation, it had carried out its responsibilities fairly and reasonably. It added that it therefore considered the goodwill gesture to be appropriate in the circumstances; but reminded the resident that she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
The complaint was subsequently referred to this Service. However, it is acknowledged that communication has continued between the landlord and resident since. The resident recently requested a further inspection of the property; and this has been agreed by the landlord. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the inspection is due to take place in April 2021.

Assessment and findings

The lease agreement, as detailed above, provides that the landlord is responsible for the exterior of the building, including the external walls and the roof, and the resident is responsible for the interior walls of the property. On receipt of a report of potential disrepair, the landlord’s first action should be to inspect the issue. It is noted that its contractor inspected the roof of the property at the end of October 2018, found no evidence of a defect, and concluded that the source of the damp and mould was condensation.
It is acknowledged that the resident disagrees with the conclusion that was reached. The resident has also referred to cracks in the pointing that may need remedying. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any other evidence in relation to this – or that this was communicated by the contractors to the landlord’s repairs team. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspection carried out by its contractor, and to conclude that there was no external cause of the reported damp and mould.
Given that no exterior fault or disrepair was identified, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to therefore advise the resident that the responsibility for the remedial work lay with her. While the landlord did initially advise the resident as such, it then asked her on eight subsequent occasions, to provide quotes for the remedial work for its “consideration”. Although it did not explicitly confirm it would reimburse her for the cost of remedial works arising from the reports of damp and mould, the repeated request for quotes was likely to have given rise to an expectation that the landlord would make some contribution to the cost of any remedial work. This was a failing on the landlord’s part which it apologised for in its final stage complaint response on 12 April 2019.
It is also noted that during the course of the complaint the resident informed the landlord that she was advised by its contractor that the damp and mould were possibly connected to the quality of the loft insulation. The landlord subsequently arranged for the insulation to be renewed. This response was appropriate given that the insulation is the landlord’s responsibility under the lease agreement. From the evidence that is available, there is nothing which shows that the landlord clarified the reason why the insulation works were carried out – or indeed whether it had reached a conclusion as to whether the insulation had contributed to the damp and mould within the property. It may have been useful for the landlord to provide further explanation; as the undertaking of the insulation works after the resident had submitted her complaint may have given rise to an inference by the resident that a defect existed and that this was the cause of the problems within the property. There was an omission here, and a failure to address a specific concern that had been raised through the complaints process.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, it failed to adequately manage her expectations during the complaints procedure with regards to the making good works. The landlord acknowledged this within the final complaint response. The landlord offered £200 compensation overall, with £75 of this attributed to the failure to advise the resident correctly in relation to the making good works, and the repeated requests for quotations. This was a reasonable offer in light of its compensation policy.
However, as detailed above, the landlord did not provide any comments in relation to why the loft insulation works were completed – and whether there was a suggestion that the insulation had contributed to the damp and mould within the property. There also appears to be an element of miscommunication within the landlord’s organisation, as the resident informed it, in her final stage complaint request on 8 March 2019, that it had agreed to carry out investigation of the damp and mould, but this was not acknowledged in its final stage complaint response on 12 April 2019.
It is noted that the landlord has since agreed to undertake a further inspection of the property. If the inspection establishes that the damp and mould problems have been caused by a repair which is the landlord’s responsibility, then the landlord should consider making a contribution to any making good works. The landlord should also consider a further compensation award for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident whilst any repair has been outstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property from 2018.
2. service failure in how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the comments from its contractor that there was no sign of external disrepair resulting in an ingress of water, and damp and mould, within the property. During the course of the complaint, the landlord made requests for quotations for making good works within the property, which raised the resident’s expectations about any compensation or reimbursement she may receive. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that this was a failing, and offered the resident compensation in respect of this accordingly.
However, the complaint correspondence issued by the landlord was not as thorough as it should have been; and in addition to leaving some of the resident’s concerns unanswered, the landlord missed an opportunity to try to resolve aspects of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. pay the resident the £200 that it previously awarded to her in its final stage complaint response for other issues, if this has not been previously paid.
2. pay the resident £50 for inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified through this investigation.

Recommendation

The landlord should update the Ombudsman with the outcome of its inspection in April 2021 once it has taken place.