Sanctuary Housing Association (202126153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126153

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 October 2022

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:  
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and her request for reimbursement for items damaged by the damp and mould. 
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. There have been historical issues with damp in the property which resulted in the landlord receiving a notice to take action, from the local authority’s environmental health team. The landlord confirmed with the resident, in October 2019, that the work to resolve the damp was completed. It explained to her on 9 April 2020 that its recent specialist damp survey of the property had found that there were no structural issues causing damp and the damp present was a result of lifestyle issues.
3. On 14 January 2021, the landlord carried out work to fix a roof leak. Its subsequent inspection report on 16 March 2021 found that, while the leak had contributed to damp within the property, the damp was exacerbated by lifestyle factors including inadequate use of heating and use of a tumble drier which was not vented to the outside and vented into the property. The landlord raised a schedule of works which included treating the mould, replacing the loft hatch with an insulated version, laying further loft insulation and installing an extractor fan. Compensation was paid to the resident for complaints raised in connection with the resident’s reports of damp and mould which were closed in August 2021 and October 2021.
4. The resident raised a new complaint on 7 January 2022 in which she said that she had needed to move out of the second bedroom because of the proliferation of mould. This had ruined her curtains and furniture and caused breathing difficulties in the household. The landlord inspected the property on 18 January 2022 and in its stage one complaint response, it relayed its findings of high levels of damp in the property which it attributed to the reoccurrence of the leak from the roof. It recommended that the resident be temporarily moved from the property due to health vulnerabilities while it recalled the contractor to address the roof repair and ordered a specialist damp survey.  
5. After inspections by the landlord’s roof contractor and its damp specialist, the landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 1 March 2022 and scheduled works including laying additional loft insulation, treating and stain blocking the mould, and repairing/replacing unopenable windows in the property. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 March 2022, in which she said that the damp and mould over the past four years had caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to her possessions, and she had experienced stress and ill health due to the landlord not taking responsibility for addressing the damp and mould.
6. The landlord’s final complaint responses on 4 and 11 April 2022 referred her to its public liability insurers if she considered that she had experienced a detriment to her health. It relayed that its contractor’s and damp specialist’s inspections had found that there was no evidence of a leak or structural issues causing the damp in the property; it attributed this to lifestyle factors. The landlord asserted that there was no evidence of a service failure but increased its offer of compensation to £350 to the resident for her inconvenience. The resident told this Service on 11 April 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied as she believed the landlord had masked its responsibility for the damp.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and her request for reimbursement for items damaged by the damp and mould

7. This investigation will focus on the resident’s recent complaint made on 7 January 2022. The historical complaints will be not be considered as there was no evidence of the resident expressing further dissatisfaction with their resolution at the time or that these had exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy. The historical information has been included to add context to the complaint under investigation.
8. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. It also has a responsibility, in line with the Housing Act 2004, to identify and mitigate any hazards which may exist in the property – which include threats to physical and mental health. Therefore, it is obliged to keep the structure of the property in good repair and to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself that it has addressed any potential hazards in the property which are its responsibility to remedy.
9. When a landlord receives a report of damp and mould, its first action should therefore be to inspect the property. Where problems may be complex or not easily identifiable it is reasonable for it to instruct specialists to confirm the cause of any damp or the existence of structural issues. In response to the resident’s report of damp in the property, it recalled its contractor to inspect the roof for signs of a recurrence of the previous leak, it obtained a report from a damp specialist, and it inspected the property itself before and after these inspections. This was a reasonable and comprehensive approach on the part of the landlord to address the concerns raised by the resident.
10. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the issue was inspected by three different parties which concluded that there was no evidence of a structural defect leading to the damp and mould reported by the resident. It was reasonable, therefore, that it concluded, on this basis, that the reported damp and mould were a result of lifestyle factors. This was reinforced by the findings of the damp survey on 18 February 2022 reiterating observations made in its inspection on 16 March 2021 that the tumble drier present in the property should be vented externally but was not, and that other lifestyle factors contributed to the damp and mould in the property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer advice in its final complaint response how to manage the condensation in the property.
11. The landlord raised a schedule of works on 1 March 2022 which included treating the mould in the property, laying further loft insulation and repairing unopenable windows. Given that the damp inspection had found that the loft had sufficient insulation “on the whole”, and that the damp and mould resulted from the resident’s lifestyle, it was outside the landlord’s obligation to carry out this work. In assuming responsibility for doing so, it demonstrated a reasonable commitment to alleviating the damp and mould for the resident and resolving the complaint. Repairs to windows would be the landlord’s responsibility; given that there was no evidence of a prior report about these from the resident, it was reasonable for it to address these once it became aware through the inspection.
12. The resident informed this Service that she was dissatisfied that the landlord installed a dehumidifier in the property despite her informing it that she was unhappy with works being carried in the property while their possessions remained inside. It was reasonable for the landlord to proceed with this installation in the interim, given that the damp and mould was reported to be causing damage within the property. However, there was no evidence that it informed the resident beforehand that it would do this and this was a communication failure by the landlord. She raised that this was an effort to manipulate the findings of the following damp survey. However, it is not possible to determine whether this would have prevented the identification of any structural issues leading to the damp and mould, nor is it possible to evidence the landlord’s intentions in the timing of this installation.
13. The resolution sought by the resident to her complaint was for the landlord to compensate her for damage to possessions which had occurred in the past four years caused by damp and mould. Its “Complaints – Housing and Support Policy and Procedure” provides for offering compensation for damage to or loss of belongings due to the landlord’s action or inaction. Compensation, therefore, should be paid where there is an identifiable failure by the landlord resulting in damage. However, in this instance, it cannot be held responsible for damage caused by lifestyle factors, and there was no evidence of a structural defect or failure by the landlord leading to the reported damp and mould. It was therefore reasonable that it declined to compensate the resident for damaged possessions.
14. The landlord’s interim final response on 4 April 2022 referred the resident to its public liability insurers for consideration of her reported ill health due to the damp and mould. This was reasonable because, if personal injury had occurred through any identifiable failure by the landlord, it would be appropriate for its public liability insurers to consider a claim. It is beyond the remit of this Service to consider whether the landlord’s actions or lack thereof, directly led to any negative health impact for the resident. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ill health, in consideration of any health vulnerabilities which existed in the household. In this case, the landlord responded reasonably and promptly by moving the resident’s household to alternative accommodation in light of the vulnerabilities present. Therefore, there was no failure in this regard.
15. The landlord offered £350 compensation to the resident in its final complaint response, of which £100 was to recognise its delayed response to her complaint which will be discussed in more detail below. The remaining £250 compensation was offered for delays and the resident’s time and trouble with its response to the leak. As there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord, other than its failure to communicate with her about the installation of the dehumidifier, this offer was in excess of its obligations, despite it not specifically acknowledging the communication failure. The landlord’s “Complaints – Housing and Support Policy and Procedure” provides for offering compensation of between £0 and £50 for a failure which required low effort from the resident to resolve and had a low impact. Given that there was no evidence of a significant detriment to her, the offer of £250 was in excess of this and was a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

16. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure with responses to be provided to the resident within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at the final stage. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes, it is to contact the resident to explain why and agree an extension to the timeframe. It may issue an interim response during this time to provide its findings so far.
17. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 25 January 2022, 12 working days after her complaint on 7 January 2022. This was reasonable, given that it provided her with an interim response on 20 January 2022 that explained that it was awaiting further information from its inspections.
18. However, it may have been helpful for the landlord to have provided the resident with its stage one complaint response after it had reviewed reports from all inspections. Its interim response to her on 20 January 2022, it apologised that its previous works had not remedied the damp problem. The landlord’s stage one response on 25 January 2022 said that its surveyor believed that there had been a reoccurrence of the leak in the roof and the roof insulation had become saturated. It also noted that it had previously found a leak in the roof and it said it would repair the “ongoing” roof issue. These communications amounted to an acknowledgement of an unresolved roof leak in the property which was leading to the damp and mould issues reported by the resident.
19. Where there has been a failure by the landlord, it would be responsible for it to compensate the resident for any losses experienced, in accordance with its compensation guidance. Its “Complaints – Housing and Support Policy and Procedure” provides for offering compensation for damage to or loss of belongings due to the landlord’s action or inaction. Therefore, its implied acknowledgement of structural issues mentioned above, would have led to a reasonable expectation from her that the property was the reason for the damp she experienced and the resultant damage to her possessions. It follows that the resident would have had a reasonable expectation that the landlord would offer some form of reimbursement for this, in accordance with its compensation policy.
20. This expectation was evident from the resident’s communications after the stage one complaint response which sought reimbursement for the cost of her possessions which had been damaged by damp over the previous four years. Therefore, the landlord’s provision of its stage one response before it had completed all inspections was likely to have led to disappointment on the resident’s part when it subsequently found no evidence of a service failure in its final response on 11 April 2022.
21. The resident also experienced difficulties in escalating her complaint. After the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to her on 25 January 2022, she emailed to request a telephone call to discuss her dissatisfaction with its response. It responded on 3 February 2022 to inform her that she may escalate her complaint to the final stage if she remained dissatisfied; it would have been more expedient for the landlord to have called her to discuss her dissatisfactions, which may have led to a quicker resolution of the complaint.
22. It was evident that the resident’s partner requested to speak to the landlord about the complaint but was not authorised to do so; it was unclear if it relayed this to the resident at the time. The complaint was then escalated to the final stage on 2 March 2022. The landlord provided an interim response to the resident on 4 April 2022 before issuing its final response to her on 11 April 2022. These response timeframes were reasonable once it acknowledged the complaint on 2 March 2022.
23. There was a delay of approximately one month in the landlord recognising that the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint and subsequently escalating this to the final stage. It offered her £100 compensation in its final complaint response to address its delay. This was a reasonable offer which was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This guidance provides for awards of £50 to £100 where there was a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident and was of relatively short duration.
24. However, the landlord did not acknowledge in its final response that its stage one complaint responses may have given rise to heightened expectations for the resident which would have led to disappointment for her. While it did not specifically acknowledge this, it is considered that reasonable redress has been offered to the resident through its compensation offer in the previous section which was in excess of its obligations. The excess offer of compensation adequately addresses that the landlord’s response may have led to expenditure of time and trouble for the resident, which ultimately had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and her request for reimbursement for items damaged by the damp and mould.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

26. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the total compensation amount of £350 it offered her in its final stage complaint response.
    2. Review its complaints handling procedures to ensure that accurate and informed information is provided to residents which adequately manages their expectations.