Southern Housing Group Limited (202102647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102647

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 February 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 handling of damp and mould at the property.
   2. The associated communication and complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 4 May 2015.  The property is a two-bedroom maisonette.
3. The landlord’s historic records show the resident reporting issues with mould and damp at the property from June 2018, when she was chasing the matter up with the landlord which, at this time, acknowledged internally that investigations it said it would carry out had not been. It is unclear what happened next but in November and December 2018 there continued to be discussions about mould in the property between the landlord and resident, with her seeking a resolution and again still, in November 2019. 
4. On 6 November 2019, the landlord determined the mould to be “minimal” at this time and noted that refurbishment works would soon to be going ahead, which would help to address the issues.  It advised the resident to pull her wardrobe away from the wall, stating that the lack of air circulating around it would be contributing to mould growth behind it. It stated that it could not escalate her concerns into a formal complaint as there was “not enough evidence”.
5. In an email to the resident dated 12 December 2019, the landlord acknowledged that it has attended the property “several times over the last two years” and carried out works including “ventilation, new storage heaters and mould washes” but deemed the mould issues to be minor in nature. Cavity wall insulation was seen as a possible long-term solution, although it was aware that regeneration works would be commencing shortly, which might help.  The landlord therefore ordered works for a mould wash and decoration.
6. The resident has said that she in fact reported the same issue every year, with a mould-wash and decorating being carried out each time and the underlying root cause never being addressed.  The landlord has acknowledged there have been many reports and inspections over the years and actions taken including installing data loggers, but the issue persisted.

Summary of events

7. The resident made a formal complaint on 27 February 2021, which was received by the landlord on 1 March 2021 about ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property, which she said were making her children unwell and costing her money in having to throw out items which had become mould damaged. The mould washes and redecoration had been carried out at the property for five years running and the underlying problem was not resolved, with the issues returning each year.  She wanted the underlying problems resolved and a permanent solution provided. 
8. Having not heard from the landlord, the resident contacted it by phone and by email on a number of occasions over the month and on 7 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it aimed to provide a response within ten working days.
9. No stage one response was received, nor any explanation or updates for the delay, although on 28 May 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection at the property, and found issues of mould growth, excessive moisture, low temperatures and high humidity. Suggestions to resolve the issues included providing a sufficient heating system, paying consideration to the location of the radiators and providing cavity wall insulation or a thermal board.
10. Following the inspection and findings, whilst it considered the suggestions for a more permanent resolution, the landlord raised interim works as follows:
    1. Mould-wash the ground floor hallway entrance, first floor master bedroom, first floor second bedroom, bathroom and first floor landing wall.
    2. Rake out and regrout tiled walls to the bathroom.
    3. Overhaul the fans in the bathroom and bedroom, ensuring flues are adequate without any breaks.
    4. Decorate ground floor entrance hallway, first floor master bedroom, first floor second bedroom, first floor landing and Bathroom with mould resistant paint.
11. On 1 June 2021, having still not received a stage one response to her complaint, the resident requested escalation to stage two, due to the lack of communication or resolution. As an outcome to her complaint, she wanted a permanent resolution by way of a property transfer and compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and mould-damaged items. On 15 June 2021, the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint without it having been investigated at stage one, advising that it would provide a stage two response by 6 July 2021.
12. Meanwhile, on 21 June 2021, the landlord scheduled the interim works to take place from 24 June 2021 to 2 July 2021 without specifying to her what they were. She responded that she did not want a mould-wash and redecorating again, as it would not resolve the issues and requested detail of the works. The resident added that if she did not receive details of the works by 23 June 2021, she would be cancelling them.
13. No information from the landlord on the works was provided, so the resident did not permit the contractor to go ahead when they arrived at the property on 24 June 2021.
14. On 6 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, advising that its stage two response would be delayed and that it now expected to be able to provide a response by 20 July 2021.
15. The landlord issued its stage two response on 20 July 2021, as follows:
    1. It will continually update the resident in respect of her complaint until it is complete.
    2. It will contact her by 3 August 2021 in respect of her request for a property transfer, as it was in discussion with colleagues as to the options available. The landlord asked if it could install data loggers in the meantime and will invite her to a meeting to discuss her options.
    3. It offered £425 compensation, comprised of:
       1. £50 for delay/failure to complete a repair;
       2. £50 in missed or failed appointments;
       3. £25 in recognition of financial losses;
       4. £50 in recognition of service failure, and;
       5. £250 in recognition of multiple failures to resolve ongoing issues of damp and mould at the property.

Post complaint

16. On 12 August 2021, a damp specialist attended the property to carry out tests.
17. On 25 August 2021, the landlord sent a follow-up letter to its stage two complaint response. It said it had not responded on 3 August 2021 as it said it would, as it had not heard back from the resident and did not know if she wanted the involvement with the member of staff who issued the stage two response further and had assumed she did not.
18. The landlord advised that works were due to commence on 23 August 2021 (pre-dating the letter by two days) and that as part of these works, data loggers were recommended. The landlord added that it had discretion to offer additional compensation, should the resident provide it with receipts for cost incurred as a result of the damp and mould. Finally, it asked the resident to confirm whether she still wished for a property transfer and whether this would be temporary or permanent.
19. Mould-wash and redecoration works took place between 25 and 28 August 2021.
20. On 6 September 2021, it was agreed that the resident would receive an additional £370 compensation as a goodwill gesture – it is not known whether this was specifically for costs incurred.
21. On 9 September 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was no longer able to internally transfer residents, but she could apply to be transferred to another borough, which the resident did not want.  The landlord therefore advised the resident to make an internal transfer application, which would be considered by its board and provided her with the application form to do so.
22. On 16 September 2021, the landlord advised that the outcome of the damp specialist survey was that the issues were caused by poor air circulation and that the vents required replacing.  It also advised that the cavity wall insulation needs examining and a thermal imaging inspection is needed.
23. On 28 September 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident and advised that works orders had not yet been raised, as it was looking at options for increased ventilation.
24. On 16 September and 14 October 2021, Environmental Health emailed the landlord regarding the “severe damp and mould” at the property, requesting information as to what actions the landlord had taken to address the issues, without which, it would be carrying out an inspection under the Housing Act 2004.
25. On 14 October 2021, contractors attended the property unexpectedly, requesting that measurements are taken for “paper insulation”. 
26. On 17 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service and advised that the mould in the property had returned two months after the mould-wash works to resolve this had taken place.  She added that further works were soon to take place, specifically, bathroom, toilet and kitchen refurbishment and communal gas heating, for which she would be decanted for three weeks.  These works were part of a major works program.  She added that she had submitted further receipts to the landlord and had not heard anything back from it.

Assessment and findings

Handling of damp and mould

27. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. 
28. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out repairs “as quickly as possible”, however, it did not do this in this case, either with temporary or interim solutions or otherwise.  There is no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord, to resolve the issues, particularly given the nature of damp and mould issues; a potential category one hazard in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and implications in respect of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
29. There is little evidence of investigation into the issues of damp and mould being undertaken, or works to resolve the issues for good. Whilst sometimes works need more than one appointment or treatment to get it right, the landlord repeatedly used a mould wash and redecoration as its response – works which were themselves delayed – in the knowledge that this was a recurring issue and the temporary fix of mould wash was wholly insufficient to address the issue by more than a couple of months.
30. While condensation can lead to mould spores, this was clearly a more significant issue. The mould was recurring throughout the property, not just behind the wardrobe which the resident moved, and the landlord had a responsibility to resolve it.
31. In terms of the resident refusing works, there is an obligation on a tenant, to reasonably allow access for works to go ahead.  In this instance, the resident was understandably frustrated at the possibility of the same unsuccessful works being carried out again and her question to the landlord, as to what the works were, was in itself an entirely appropriate and reasonable one.  The absence of response from the landlord is indicative of its communication throughout this case, which was severely lacking.
32. Resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. The landlord is entitled to rely on the specialist opinion of an independent contractor and does not need ‘permission’ by a resident to carry out specific works on the property that it deems appropriate. However, there is no evidence of attempts in this case to thoroughly discuss the issues with the resident, evaluate the situation, bring specialist contractors together or to approach the issue in any joined-up or solution-focussed way.
33. There was no communication or expectation management by the landlord and the narrow and short-term focus, was not only far from economical, with repeated visits, but led to the issues remaining unresolved for a period of years.  This led to a prolonged impact on the resident and her family, including unnecessary stress and inconvenience and damage to the landlord-tenant relationship, with confidence and trust in it completely eroded. 
34. In the 2019 documentation, the landlord makes reference to regeneration works which may resolve issues – these works were ultimately carried out towards the end of 2021, in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  The landlord was not to know that the pandemic would cause delay to these works, however, regeneration works do not negate the landlord’s responsibility to address issues of damp and mould at the time they are reported. 
35. Moreover, while regeneration works by way of a new bathroom, kitchen and heating system may help address issues, they may also not be the root cause of it, which is what the resident was trying to communicate to the landlord for a protracted period, to no avail. In circumstances where the landlord wanted to carry out an interim solution pending imminent major works which it believed would resolve matters – in full or in part – this would provide an opportunity for it to discuss this with the resident.  In doing so, it would be effectively communicating with her and provide reassurance that the issues would not be forgotten and that this was a planned approach to resolving them, rather than leaving her feeling unheard and unsupported in the matter, which is what happened.
36. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends awards of £700 ‘in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Examples of where we make remedies in the region of these amounts could include failures leading to Environmental Enforcement Orders.’ Events occurring since landlord’s final response to the complaint, as detailed in paragraphs 16 to 26, indicate that this case falls within that category. The landlord’s eventual total offer of compensation, of £795 would therefore ordinarily be sufficient in this instance. However, due to the uncoordinated nature of the landlord’s overall response, including the outstanding repair issues and the overall length of time that the resident has been experiencing these issues, a finding of severe maladministration is deemed appropriate. There is no apparent progress in the landlord’s approach and, by consequence, a full resolution appears a distant prospect.
37.  The lack of planned approach, thorough investigation of the root cause/s, communication, expectation management and action plan to resolve issues is evident throughout.  Post-complaint stage, the approach to the works is chaotic and confusing, with investigations being carried out but with no outcome communicated and a contractor arriving unannounced to measure up for something the resident had never heard of.  This indicates an absence of learning on the part of the landlord, with problems evident from at least 2018 continuing.

Communication and complaints handling

38. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one, within 10 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation to stage two of the process, following which, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.
39. Prior to the complaint made by the resident on 27 February 2021, she had wanted to make a complaint two years prior, in 2019, about the same issue but was told by the landlord that there “was not enough evidence”.  The landlord’s obstruction of the complaints process in this way was highly inappropriate and completely unacceptable.  A resident has a right to submit a complaint about a landlord’s handling of repairs; it is the very purpose of the investigation of a complaint to establish what the evidence is.
40. It was further inappropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 27 February 2021, which it received on 1 March 2021, until over a month later and following lots of chasers from the resident about this. There is no explanation by the landlord as to why it took so long to do this and indeed no explanation as to why it did not issue a stage one complaint response at all. 
41. Investigating a complaint and providing a formal stage one response is a fundamental aspect of complaints handling; it is at this stage that the landlord has an opportunity to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the complainant’s concerns and to investigate matters through speaking with personnel and reviewing repair records, for instance and a chance to put things right.  The landlord did not do this. The purpose of a stage two complaint response, is to review the outcome of the investigation at stage one and to decide if the matter was properly investigated and the right outcome reached – it is not to reinvestigate issues.  In this way, the function of stage one and two of the complaints process are fundamentally different.
42. In the absence of a stage one investigation, the landlord was required to investigate the matter at stage two, as there was no outcome of an investigation to review.  The landlord did not do this, instead stating that it would keep in touch (which it did not) about works and the possibility of a property transfer and offered compensation in recognition of delays, service failures and financial losses.  It is not possible to understand how the landlord arrived at the figure it did because there was insufficient investigation into the issues, echoing in the complaints process, the absence of investigation into the damp and mould. It was not clear how many appointments were missed and being compensated for, for instance.
43. Moreover, having acknowledged – in the absence of a thorough investigation – that there were delays and service failures – there continued to be delay and service failure, in its complaints handling and repairs to the property.  There remained a lack of urgency as to the issues, as well as a continued lack of a joined-up and strategic approach, particularly given the outcome it had arrived at.
44. It was unreasonable that the landlord stated in the follow-up stage two letter that it had not followed up and done what it said it would do as it was unsure if the resident wanted further contact on the stage two response. The documentation provided to this Service indicates quite the opposite – that the resident merely wants the situation resolved. Even where a resident is dissatisfied with an individual member of staff, this would not negate the landlord’s responsibility to do what it said it would do.
45. Finally, the follow-up work as a result of the complaint, was a repeated mould-wash and suggestion of decoration and data loggers, all of which the resident had communicated did not work, demonstrating a continued lack of listening to the resident or collaborative or customer focussed approach to getting the issues resolved.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord, in respect of its handling of reports of mould and damp at the property.
47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord, in respect of the complaint about its communication and complaints handling.

Reasons

48. The landlord failed to investigate and establish the root cause of the issue over a protracted period. There was excessive delay in carry out light-touch treatment, which repeatedly did not work and no explanation as to what it was doing or why or any plan in place to tackle the problem.
49. The landlord failed to communicate effectively throughout, in respect of its response to addressing the damp and mould at the property and in its complaints handling.
50. In addition to not allowing a complaint in 2019, there was a lack of acknowledgement of the later complaint in 2021, until the landlord was chased for a period of one month by the resident, and thereafter not issuing a stage one complaint response at all. 
51. The stage two complaint response did not investigate or address the issues, but offered compensation based on failings which are not clarified. The stage two complaint response set out steps it would take, which it did not, and its stage two-follow-up response was unprofessional and failed to address or resolve issues.

Orders

52. The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £150 for the poor handling of its communication and the complaints process.
    2. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused and the resident’s time and trouble.
53. This compensation is in addition the compensation already offered, thus, bringing the total sum to £1095. This does not include monies paid for mould-damaged items or costs associated with the damp and mould.
54. The landlord to respond to the resident’s submission of receipts that she has said she has sent in and not heard back about.
55. The landlord to apologise for the maladministration found, in respect of both aspects of the complaint.
56. The landlord to contact the resident to agree a date for her decant. 
57. In carrying out any inspections at the property and/or subsequent works, the landlord to clearly communicate with the resident at each step and in advance of any inspection or works planned or being carried out, clarifying what action is being taken, why and when.
58. The landlord to offer to discuss with the resident housing options, including property transfer.
59. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report. 

Recommendations

60. The landlord should seriously consider sharing the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.