Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202407308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407308

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

18 December 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of 2-bedroom flat on the third floor of a block. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident occupies the property with her partner and two young children.
4. In late November 2022, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. She said that since cladding had been removed by the landlord, there was increased damp at the front of her property affecting her son’s bedroom and upstairs windows. The landlord explained new cladding would be installed in December 2022 and January 2023. In early December 2022, the landlord explained the current cladding replacement works related to fire safety but recognised that removing the original cladding had caused an issue with water ingress. It added that if residents experienced damage as a result of water ingress, this would be rectified once fire safety works were completed. The landlord undertook a survey of the resident’s property on 6 December 2022.
5. On 20 January 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the damp. She said there had been increased mould and water ingress onto the window ledges and this had not occurred prior to cladding work commencing. On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that while a survey took place on 6 December 2022, more in-depth surveys and testing of all affected properties was required and a further visit to the resident’s property was booked for 16 February 2023. The landlord committed to establishing a plan to resolve these matters. On 10 March 2023 a work order was raised to investigate the external side of the windows and in mid-April 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to identify the source of water ingress. They found this was caused by faulty mastic sealant around the windows and replaced this.
6. On 15 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again. She advised there were 3 new areas of damp and water ingress. She was disappointed about this and added that, since the cladding had been replaced, there was a damp smell in the hallway, water marks on the wall and a new damp patch by a window. She subsequently made a formal complaint about this on 22 March 2024 in which she said all deadlines had been missed, there was no clear plan to rectify the issues, and internal redecorations remained outstanding.
7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 8 April 2024. It said it had arranged a visit to the resident’s property for 12 April 2024. It acknowledged there were delays in remedial works and that it was made aware of issues with water ingress in 2022. It had thought that, once the cladding works were complete, these issues would be resolved, but during summer 2023 it received further reports of water ingress from other residents in the building. It acknowledged that at this point it had not successfully determined the root causes and that it had instructed its contractor to visit all affected homes. It apologised for the ongoing distress caused and said it would provide regular updates on when works would take place. It added it would review any compensation once the water ingress issues were resolved.
8. On 23 April 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that although a visit had taken place, the mould was getting worse and no new information or timelines had been provided. On 22 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It apologised that some of the timelines had moved, which it said was outside its control. It added it planned to work with a separate contractor to undertake a full survey of all properties in the block and this would commence in June 2024. It noted it was still in discussion with its contractor who undertook the cladding works.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this service on 22 May 2024. She remained unhappy that the water ingress was unresolved. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to resolve the root cause of water ingress and damp and mould. She added that she wanted the internal damage made good and the landlord to communicate effectively going forward.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

10. In the resident’s complaint to this service she advised she had experienced damp and mould since she moved into the property in 2009. While this may be the case, the Ombudsman may not consider issues as far back as this. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
11. The Ombudsman has seen initial correspondence about damp and mould from late November 2022. While the resident made a formal complaint about this in January 2023 and the landlord provided a formal stage 1 response to this on 3 February 2023, this complaint was not escalated or brought to this service, which was not unreasonable as the landlord committed in its stage 1 response to establishing a plan to resolve the issues raised by the resident. The landlord carried out work on the resident’s property in April 2023, and the resident did not complain again until January 2024, 9 months later, as a result of finding new areas of damp and water ingress. Given the timescale, it was reasonable for the landlord to log this as a new complaint. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the events from January 2023 up until the landlord’s final response of May 2024 and any commitments that it made. However, events outside this period may be referred to for context.
12. The resident has also advised that the damp, and mould she experienced impacted the health of the household. It is beyond the remit of this service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will therefore consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations and whether it acted fairly in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp and mould

13. The lease and repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for the common and structural parts of the building. The resident is responsible for the internal parts of her home and individual services to it. When the landlord becomes aware of the need for repair, it should take appropriate steps to put things right within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend and complete non-emergency repairs, by appointment, at a time agreed with the resident within 20 working days. For complex major repairs, it aims to complete these within 40 working days.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy dated March 2024 states that upon receiving a report of damp and mould, it will aim to attend within 20 working days. Where the problem is not easy to identify, the landlord will carry out a full survey of the property. Where the work may take some time, the landlord will, where possible, carry out damp and mould washing. Following damp and mould works being completed, the landlord will contact residents at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month intervals to satisfy itself that the problems have not returned. In the policy there is an emphasis on updating residents throughout the works process including timeframes, advising of any changes, and sharing reports and surveys. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial damp and mould reports in 2023, but is referred to as a sensible guide.
15. In January 2023, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised a work order for 23 January 2023 for mould removal. However, this was cancelled. The landlord’s records showed that the mould wash would be re-raised once the windows were resealed in mid- to late-April 2023, but a mould wash did not take place following these works. While it is not entirely clear why, the resident did not report any further issues until January 2024 which may indicate that water ingress and mould were not prevalent during the remainder of 2023. Nevertheless, the mould wash remained outstanding during this period.
16. The landlord recognised that when the cladding was removed, in some cases the waterproof mastic sealant around the windows and doors was affected and allowed ingress of water. The landlord attempted to rectify this with the application of new mastic sealant in April 2023. Nevertheless, the resident again reported water ingress in January and March 2024. It is apparent there was a wider water ingress issue with the building which was related to the removal of cladding, and its replacement in early 2023. Given that these works were complex and likely constituted major works, it should have completed these within 40 working days in line with its repairs policy. Yet, this did not happen.
17. Moreover, the landlord should have checked in with the resident at 3- and 6-month intervals to establish if the problem had been resolved following the window mastic sealant works in April 2023. However, there is no evidence this happened, and the landlord failed to act in accordance with its damp and mould policy. Indeed, the landlord did not provide an update until November 2023, around 7 months later, but this was a general update sent to all residents in the building, not specifically the resident. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
18. It is noted the resident did not make a further report until January 2024. The landlord appeared to want to wait until the water ingress across all properties in the building had been resolved before carrying out mould washes and internal decoration inside each individual property. This is consistent with an internal landlord note dated 8 February 2023 which suggested the mould wash job was to be put on hold as “should be considered as part of wider issues of the building”. In any case, it should have checked in with the resident throughout 2023 and offered mould washes where appropriate.
19. The landlord issued an update to all residents in November and December 2023, where it set out its intention to implement its plan for the remaining internal works. However, it noted that these could not proceed as there were outstanding water ingress works. It apologised for the delays but reassured the residents that it accepted these areas would need to be made good at no expense to the leaseholders. Again, at this point, where it identified that work may take some time, it should have considered carrying out damp and mould washing in line with its policy. However, it did not.
20. Although the household did not have any vulnerabilities, it is concerning that the landlord did not carry out any risk assessments in this case despite repeated reports of damp and mould and the fact that young children occupied the property. Furthermore, several inspections took place between December 2022 and April 2024 so the landlord should have been aware of the extent of the mould. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health.
21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to satisfactorily coordinate necessary remedial works. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant given the fact she occupied the property with 2 young children.
22. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord undertook mould washes in April 2024 and October 2024. Used in conjunction with good practice to manage moisture levels, a mould wash can be an effective tool to prevent the spread of mould. Landlords must however deal with the cause of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms. It is recognised the resident reported new areas of mould in early 2024 which suggests that the causes of the damp and mould had not previously been correctly identified nor resolved by the window sealant works in April 2023.
23. It appears the landlord provided a dehumidifier to the resident around October 2024. Considering the resident reported water ingress and damp in January 2024, the landlord should have considered supplying one then, or at least once it knew it was unlikely to be able to resolve the issue promptly. To date, it does not appear that the landlord has offered to pay £3 per day to cover the costs of running the dehumidifier as outlined in its compensation policy. As such, a recommendation has been made below.
24. The resident complained in January and March 2024 that since the cladding was replaced, there were new areas of damp and mould. At this point, the landlord should have promptly attended to inspect the new areas of mould. Yet the landlord did not respond to the resident’s January 2024 correspondence. This caused an avoidable delay of over 2 months and caused time and trouble for the resident who had to pursue the matter in order for the landlord to act.
25. Following the resident’s March 2024 correspondence, the landlord acted fairly by apologising for the ongoing distress caused by the water ingress. It also arranged a further survey on 12 April 2024 and undertook a mould wash. These were reasonable and proportionate steps to take. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of the 12 April 2024 survey, nor does this feature in the landlord’s repair logs. The landlord updated the resident on 10 May 2024. However, the Ombudsman has not seen this update in the landlord’s records either. This may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping, and a recommendation has been made.
26. From January 2024, particularly as there were historic issues and it was on notice of the resident having water ingress and damp issues, the landlord should have acted with more urgency. Even after an inspection in April 2024, the resident was told that it would undertake yet another inspection in June 2024. While the landlord was entitled to do this, it did not explain to the resident what would be different in a further inspection. A landlord note dated October 2024 suggested that the delays were attributable to its contractors declining to carry out the works and the landlord failing to engage internally. While the Ombudsman appreciates the complexity of the works involved, the landlord did not act in line with policy and did not carry out major works within 40 working days nor provide regular updates to the resident throughout.
27. In October 2024, the landlord reviewed the case and at this point paid the resident £600 compensation which was applied to her rent account which was in arrears. This was in recognition of the fact that the long-term works had taken considerably longer than it originally hoped and it recognised its communication had been inconsistent, which had caused further frustration. In late November 2024, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the exploratory works had not yet started and that it planned to do so within the next few weeks and would update the resident accordingly.
28. This service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this service that the landlord only undertook a further review and considered compensation after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. The landlord missed an opportunity to offer redress which would have demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and had recognised how the delays had impacted the resident.
29. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property was poor. While the landlord assured the resident it would resolve the issue, and carried out a number of assessments 2023, it did not take any meaningful action within a reasonable time. The water ingress issues persisted because of the delays caused by the landlord and this meant that the resident continued to wait indefinitely for its action. The continuous experience for damp and mould was also inconvenient for the resident. Additionally, the landlord did not undertake a risk assessment nor did it offer any alternative solutions such as dehumidifiers in early 2024 when it was made aware that the damp issue persisted.
30. Although the landlord recognised these errors, apologised and made an offer of £600 compensation outside its complaints process, this did not, in the Ombudsman’s view, go far enough to adequately reflect the level of detriment to the household living with water ingress and damp and mould for a prolonged period, particularly in a bedroom where young children slept.
31. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration, and orders have been made below. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which had a significant impact on the resident. A further award of £200 has been ordered which amounts to £800 compensation, which the Ombudsman’s considers to be proportionate to the circumstances and in line with the remedies guidance above.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

32. The landlord’s complaints policy states a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. It adds that whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction about the landlord’s service, it will always ask if they wish to make a complaint.
33. The resident’s email of 15 January 2024, where she reported further damp stated “this is not acceptable” and that she was “extremely disappointed”. This was sent to a number of landlord staff members and the landlord’s complaints email address. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised a new complaint in response to the resident’s email, and at the very least it should, in accordance with its complaints policy, have reached out to the resident asking if she wished to make a complaint. It was only when the resident raised a further expression of dissatisfaction in March 2024 that the landlord raised a formal complaint.
34. The landlord missed an opportunity to respond sooner and failed to engage with an expression of dissatisfaction at the earliest point, contrary to its complaints policy. This caused a 2-month delay in getting matters resolved as well as distress and inconvenience to the resident who likely felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. Since the complaint handling failure was minimal, of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome, this amounts to service failure. In view of this, an order has been made below for remedy.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp and mould.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a further £250 made up of:
       1. £200 for the failings identified in its handling of reports of water ingress and damp and mould.
       2. £50 for the failings in its complaints handling.
    3. Carry out the exploratory works and provide an action plan to both the resident and Ombudsman setting out how it will resolve the water ingress, and damp and mould, including timeframes for completion. Once the landlord has satisfied itself that it has resolved these issues, it must make good any affected internal areas within a reasonable time, ensuring it keeps the resident regularly updated.
38. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has attempted to comply with the orders within the above timescale.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should:
    1. Consider reimbursing the resident for the use of the dehumidifier in line with its compensation policy.
    2. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service including non-emergency repairs, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of May 2023 on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).