Southern Housing Group Limited (202107312)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107312

Southern Housing Group Limited

14 August 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould within the property.
2. Request for a priority move to alternative housing.
3. Related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 27 June 2005. The property is a two-bedroom, second floor maisonette. The resident, her husband and three children occupy the property.
The resident suffers from breathing problems due to a severe allergy to mould and in her stage 2 complaint reported to the landlord that suffered from sickle cell anaemia. The resident’s adult son suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and presents autistic behavioural disorders. It is not clear from the evidence if the landlord has recorded these vulnerabilities for the resident’s household on its system.
The Local Authority (LA) manage all of the landlord’s available housing stock through the common housing register.
The resident joined common housing register in 2005. In 2018, the resident’s application for medical priority was refused by the LA Housing Management Panel (HMP).

Scope of investigation

Throughout the timeframe investigated the resident told the landlord that the mould in the property and the lack of action taken to address this, had led to her having breathing difficulties.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there is a causal link between health conditions experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s and her households’ needs when handling the issues raised and also the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to them.
As previously mentioned, the LA manage all of the landlord’s stock in the resident’s borough. Therefore, this Service is unable to consider any complaint regarding the medical priority awarded by HMP for a move as this would be under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This review has considered whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a move, in accordance with its internal transfer process.

Summary of events

On 23 October 2020, the landlord attended the property to investigate the resident’s 21 October 2021 report of damp and mould. Its repair history shows it applied a mould treatment to the wall in the lounge, bathroom, and the 2 bedrooms stain block, and an “anti-condensation paint”.
The landlord’s repair history indicates that in January 2021, the resident reported that the mould had returned, and the landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to attend the property to inspect for damp and mould. This visit took place on 8 April 2021, when the surveyor advised that data loggers needed to be installed in the property to collect “temperature, humidity dew point” data, but as he did not have any, he would return to install them on 17 May 2021 and return to the property again in October/November to collect further data.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2021 and told it that the mould issue was affecting her breathing. The landlord’s note said the resident explained her son was 18 years and was sharing the bedroom with his two younger sisters. The note stated they advised her about approaching the LA and the resident said she would continue to try to bid for other properties, but she was “desperate” to speak to the Housing Services Manager (HSM) about her housing situation.
On 29 May 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding damp and mould within her property. She reiterated that she had a severe allergy to mould and that was experiencing breathing difficulties as a result. She explained she took allergy tablets every day and used asthma pumps that had been prescribed since 2016, although she stated that dis not have asthma, but this was the only way to assist with her breathing.
The resident referenced the recent visit from the landlord’s surveyor and said she showed him the areas affected by the mould and explained they had to throw away bags of clothes that had been damaged. She explained it was worse in winter time when there was excess moisture and water dripping on the walls which left water marks. She said after wiping off the mould, it reappeared within a short space of time.
In her complaint the resident also stated that the property was overcrowded. She said her son had autistic behavioural problems and was now 18 years old with sensory needs. He currently shared a bedroom with his two younger female siblings (ages 7 and 11 years). The resident detailed the impact of a break-in to the property a decade ago and said her son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and said he continued to suffer from panic-attacks. She said the limited space in the property was aggravating his mental health and she was afraid her son would cause harm to his siblings. The resident said they needed help and wanted the landlord to move them, so she didn’t have to endure the affect of the mould issue.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 June 2021 and on 28 July 2021, provided a stage 1 response. This stated that its surveyor attended on 10 May 2021 to inspect the property for damp and mould. It gave details of the surveyor’s notes including that mould was identified: “at high and low level within both front and back bedrooms that have 2 external walls, storage heaters were off and isolated at the main fused switch”. The notes it included also stated the extractor fan, light and electric towel rail to bathroom were not working and referenced that a works order had been raised for its contractor to attend and “overhauled” or replaced. The notes also said further investigation of the pipe entering through the bathroom ceiling and exiting through the bathroom wall was needed.
The landlord said a further appointment was made to return with the data logger on 18 May 2021, however the resident could not make this, and a new appointment was booked. It told the resident that a new appointment had been made to install the dater logger on 9 July for install, and to collect on 23 July 2021 after which it would discuss root cause and remedy. The landlord said it would leave the complaint open with an action plan until there was more information regarding the resolutions.
On 9 September 2021, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy about the stage 1 response and that she required further investigation of the damp and mould as whilst in summer the moisture was not that bad, it would return again in the winter months. She also said her 18-year-old son was sharing a room with his 2 younger siblings. The landlord’s internal notes stated her case “might need to go to the panel”.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord advised the resident that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
On 24 September 2021, the resident called the landlord’s call centre asking to discuss her housing situation with the HSM. The resident called again on 4 October 2021 and the landlord attempted to call her back on 22 October 2021, but sent her a letter with its housing options as it had not been able to get through to speak to her.
The landlord’s note dated 28 September 2021 said the resident called as she had not had any updates on her complaint. The notes stated that because there was an active action plan in place, her complaint “may not go to stage 2”.
On 30 September 2021, the resident called saying she was expecting an email regarding what was being done to move her from the property over “mould issues”. The landlord’s notes mention sending an email to its customer relations (CR) team to provide the resident with an action plan.
Between 22 and 25 October 2021, the resident tried to call the landlord again and whilst the landlord tried to call her back, its attempt was unsuccessful. It sent her a move option leaflet (not seen by this Service).
The resident called the landlord again on 29 and 30 November 2021, in regard to moving, highlighting her situation and asking to speak to its HSM. The landlord’s internal notes show it had raised a request for the HSM to call her back. It raised a further request after the resident called again on 10 December 2021 asking about moving from the property due to overcrowding and mould issues. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date advising it had asked for its new HSM to contact her to discuss her concerns.
On 16 March 2022, the resident called again asking to urgently speak with the CR team. The landlord’s internal notes dated 16 March 2022 refer to wanting to “prevent stage twos where possible” but acknowledging that the resident was distressed about her situation indicating it would escalate her complaint.
On 24 March 2022, the resident called the landlord asking for further support in helping her move. She said she would like the HSM to visit her to discuss her needs. On the same date, the landlord’s CR team emailed the resident providing information about its priority move process. It explained that prior to the HSM conducting a review, it would carry out a preliminary assessment to benchmark if she would meet the criteria (this did not guarantee acceptance as there are other factors which will impact if this can be offered). It said a colleague would contact her to go through this with her.
On 28 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying she had made “so many attempts” to reach out and speak to the landlord to no avail. She was still waiting for the HSM to contact her since its email of 10 December 2022 when it said it would. The resident said it had not provided appropriate support to her and asked why it did had not taken her case seriously. She asked if the HSM could call her.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said to was sorry to hear about her frustration regarding the request for contact. Its previous HSM had left the organisation which caused the delay however, it provided the name of the new HSM but explained he was currently off work until 4 April 2022.
It acknowledged her current request for assistance with rehousing via the LA due to overcrowding and her son’s medical needs. It said it had previously referred her case twice to the LA HMP for review for the reasons she outlined and that on both occasions the panel declined the management award. In order for it to explore the option further it required evidence that her son’s medical needs had significantly changed. It said its HSM would discuss the matter with her further on his return.
On 3 April 2022, the resident replied saying she would prepare the information requested and in meantime could she please meet with the HSM. The landlord replied on 4 April 2022 to advise the HSM would be in contact shortly.
In the 25 April 2022: ‘housing management referral form’, the landlord referred to the wider picture being that it was going to complete works within her neighbour’s property which was also “end gable” and another property and then monitor the success of these works with a view to rolling out on a wide scale.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord’s HSM carried out a home visit and gave a copy of a medical assessment form and requested she submit supporting documentation from her GP.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord’s senior surveyor confirmed to the landlord that he had made contact with the resident and explained it would carry out minor works (mould wash and 1 seal coat of anti-condensation paint) in the interim until it could book major works in.
On 6 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate her stage 1 complaint advising the landlord had not taken it seriously and since then she had called the customer relations team on “countless” occasions as no action had been taken. The resident said the landlord was fully aware of her severe allergies to mould and the serious ongoing impact and challenges it had on her health.
She said the landlord had once again offered mould wash to her property which it had done on numerous occasions in the past and had not resolved the matter because even after the mould was washed off, the spores were still present. It was “a life and death situation”. She referred to having “other underlying health conditions” which included sickle cell which was a genetic blood disorder. She stated low oxygen levels on its own caused this to flare up, making her very ill. The resident repeated that her son had been deeply traumatised by a break-in and said he had attempted to take his own life through overdoes and that he still wet the bed.
The resident said she was appalled that nothing had been done since her stage 1 complaint and said she had given the landlord sufficient time to investigate, coordinate and update her which it had failed to do so. She asked that a senior member of staff handle her stage 2 complaint. She was aware of the need to be decanted for the works to be carried out in her property. She asked that the allocated senior case handler meet with her to discuss a suitable permanent decant property of her choice. The resident said she would also like to discuss compensation for all the stress caused, negligence and all her losses incurred through mould damage.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord received an email from environmental heath (EH) asking to decant the family due to the planned works to property. This referred to the resident’s neighbour having been decanted to get same works to be completed, noting that she had been given priority status so they could bid for a permanent move. The officer said from seeing pictures of the flats, the issue “was serious” and said she had right to leave in a home free of health and safety hazard impacting her health.
The resident’s priority banding application (for choice-based lettings) on health grounds was completed on 29 May 2022.
The landlord attended the property on 10 June 2022 to apply an interim mould treatment to the walls in the lounge, bathroom and the 2 bedrooms and apply a coat of anti-condensation paint.
On 14 June 2022, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. It acknowledged her complaint regarding damp and mould and her request for a housing transfer. It said from investigating her complaint it had identified that there had been no follow-on works booked to remedy the issues found during the data collection and in the action plan in the stage 1 response. It acknowledged works should have been arranged following the data collection and it apologised for this not happening.
Whilst she had refused interim works of mould wash and repairing of the affected area on 27 April 2022, it understood this was due to her frustration with the management of the repairs up to that point; it apologised for her experience. Interim works (mould wash) were booked and completed on 10 June 2022. The landlord said it appreciated her patience whilst it worked on the other issues she had raised. It advised her to contact it if she had any issues with mould or dampness reoccurring.
Regarding her request to be permanently moved, to support her move application its building surveyor would conduct a full inspection on 7 July 2022, for the local authority’s HMP. This report would be prepared for the LA to consider awarding a priority move to her and her family. The HMP meeting would take place on 2 August 2022. At this meeting a representative would present her case and then advise her of the outcome of the meeting. In the meantime, it would look into her request for a temporary decant. Even after closing this complaint, it said would continue to monitor this aspect.
The landlord concluded that it was upholding her complaint as she had waited an unreasonable length of time for action to be taken following the data collection due to the dampness and mould. It offered her £566.00 in compensation -£10 plus 278 days @ £2 per day for the delay until it offered interim work in April 2022. It also offered her £75 for complaint handling as it acknowledged it had not adhered to its complaint handling policy. It said an acknowledgement should have been sent following her request for a stage 2 review and regular updates should have been sent. It apologised this was not done. It had identified this as a learning point and said it was currently changing the approach to complaint handling, with a dedicated team who would be responsible for ensuring timely escalations to stage 2.
The landlord’s internal records stated that on 6 July 2022, the resident was made an offer of accommodation by another landlord however this offer was subsequently withdrawn because the resident advised she wanted to remain in her local area due to support needs.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident saying was very sorry to hear of the issues that she was having due to the cold bridging and condensation in her home. There were plans to carry out extensive insulation works to the walls and ceiling in her home, which should reduce the temperature difference between the air in her home and the walls which would reduce the condensation. It was currently trialling the installation of the insulation in 2 other properties nearby, so that it could be sure that this would resolve the issue before it could commence with the same works to all of the properties affected by the cold bridging. It anticipated that it should have the results of the trial and able to begin work in November 2022. In the interim it had carried out a mould wash to the affected areas.
Regarding her move, her request had been referred to the priority move panel and its HSM was helping to progress this. It said it was sorry to advise that it could not offer a move to another of its properties. This was because it rarely had available properties and when it did it must house the person or family from the housing register that the LA told it to.
Regarding mould and condensation, it was sorry to hear about the impact of this. It would follow this up regularly with the surveyor and keep her updated as the project progressed.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended to carry out a property condition report. Within the report it said the living room, bedroom one and bedroom two had signs of moisture damage on the external walls of the property at high level. It explained that owing to the weather conditions and recent interim works carried out, little to no mould growth was present at the time of the inspection, but stated there were remnants indicative of mould growth. It stated that due to the age, type of construction, location and design of the property, cold bridging was likely to be occurring at the abutment of the exposed concrete frame and the internal skin and or surrounding fabrics of the rooms highlighted in this report.
The report stated localised internal wall insulation should be carried out to the external walls within the property. It is recommended that cavity wall excavation and backfill with a thermabead or equivalent should be considered at the point in which the building is subject to major upgrade or reinvestment, with particular attention given to those areas subject to cold bridging.
The outcome of HMP meeting on 1 August 2022 was that there was no clear evidence that the family needed to be (permanently) moved out for remedial works to be carried out, but it needed further medical evidence from the resident that related to her sickle cell anaemia so that they could again consider her request to move based on her medical needs.
On 16 August 2022, the landlord issued a second stage 2 response in relation to the resident’s complaint. Within its response, it explained that it had identified that her property, as well as others in her block were suffering from condensation due to cold bridging, which was when there was insufficient insulation between the internal living space and a colder surface upon which the moisture in the air will condense. It said as the cause of the condensation was structural, extensive insulating works to all affected areas would be needed before to resolve the issue. It was currently trialling a proposed solution in some of the flats, and should this prove to be effective, it would be carrying out the same to all properties.
The remedial works required to insulate the affected areas of her home would be extensive and estimated to take 3 months as such it would need to temporarily decant her and her family. It said the interim mould treatment provided would resolve the issue of mould growth within her home until the permanent solution could be implemented however if more treatments were needed, it would provide these.
Regarding her request to move, the LA move panel had considered her application on 1 August 2022. It explained the panel made decisions on the medical form and additional evidence such as GP letters given to them. To ensure that the panel considered every application fairly, it said they did not consider any opinions of its staff. It said it was for this reason also that social housing providers must ask the LA to assign new residents for any empty property as they become available, to ensure that everyone on their housing register was treated fairly, and why it had no control over the nominations process, as the LA tells it who to house in each of its properties.
It noted she had said her previous complaint handler told her it was able to move her to another property however this was incorrect. It explained when any resident asks to be moved, the request must be referred to the LA for consideration by their panel for the reasons outlined above.
It understood that the moving panel had asked her to obtain further medical evidence that related to her sickle cell anaemia in order to support her request to move. This evidence would be submitted to the panel so that they could again consider her request to move based on her medical needs.
It acknowledged that there was a delay between her report of the damp and mould and the diagnosis of the cause, the cold bridging. Therefore, it was offering compensation for this delay, as while data collection was needed over many months to account for changing weather conditions, it did not offer the interim solution until May 2022 (the mould treatment and fungicidal paint application), and this was carried out on 10 June 2022. For the delay to carrying out a repair, it offered £1,150 based on: a delay of 570 days at £12 per day.
The landlord said she was given incorrect information by her complaint handler and for this it would like to offer £150. It also said her complaint was not addressed and responded to within its target timescales which was a failure of service and for which it was offering £200. In addition to this, it acknowledged that the situation had caused her stress and inconvenience for which it was offering £150. The mould caused by the condensation had adversely affected her health for which it offered £200 in recognition of this impact. The total of these amounts was £1,850.
In relation to her request for items damage by mould such as clothes and furniture to be considered for reimbursement, it said its compensation framework did not usually cover damage to personal belongings as this would need to be referred to her home contents insurance provider. However, it said if she provided a list of damaged items, any information that she might have relating to their value and age, such as receipts or website links, it would consider this.
On 17 July 2023, in response to our further information request, the landlord confirmed that:
1. The LA panel had awarded priority on health grounds in November 2022.
2. The insulation works were due to be completed on 26, 27 and 28 July 2023.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord confirmed to us that works were in progress at the property.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould within the property.

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property including internal walls and ceilings. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete (or make safe) emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be completed as soon as possible.
In response to the resident’s October 2020 report of mould, the landlord inspected the property and treated the affected areas with a mould treatment. This action was appropriate, however, it is also reasonable to expect the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation to establish the root cause, particularly when it is clear the issue is reoccurring, as in the resident’s case.
On its website, the landlord provides information regarding dealing with damp and mould and states the resident should contact it immediately. However, no timescales are given for addressing damp and mould reports nor is this stated in any of the repair policies or procedures that the landlord provided in response to our information request which is a concern. In this case, the resident made clear, at an early stage that she believed the mould within the property was impacting her health, in particular her breathing. As such it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have prioritised resolving the mould issue reported by the resident, promptly and effectively.
After receiving a further report from the resident in January 2021, it arranged for its senior surveyor to attend in April 2021 who confirmed the presence of mould but found that further investigations were needed in order to identify the cause. In its 14 June 2021 stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that data loggers would be installed in July 2021 (to record heat, humidity, and moisture levels to see how a property was performing) and that it intended to return in November 2021, so it could obtain the same data during a colder month to give a realistic picture. Whilst this Service understands the landlord needed to take this action so it could identify the cause of the mould and condensation, which can often be complex, there is no evidence of the landlord discussing the outcome of the data collected in July 2021. There is also no evidence of it returning to the property in November 2021, to install data loggers as previously indicated. The lack of any updates provided on the progress of its investigation into the mould issue is evidence of poor communication by the landlord and failure to follow through with what it agreed to do.
Furthermore, it is noted that stage 1 response referred to works being raised with its contractor for repairs needed to the bathroom extractor fan, light and electric towel rail and need for the bathroom pipe to be investigated. It is not clear from the available evidence, including the landlord’s repair history, if or when the repairs or investigation mentioned were completed. The lack of clear records indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
Although the resident was regularly in contact with the landlord from September 2021 reiterating her concern about the mould issue, there is no clear evidence to show the landlord was working to resolve this during the rest of 2021. The lack of action by the landlord was unreasonable and indicates a failure to treat the resident’s reports of mould sufficiently seriously.
It was only after the resident’s contact in March 2022, when she requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2, that the landlord offered to carry out a further mould wash treatment. The landlord’s internal notes from April 2022 also show it was investigating similar reports of mould from other properties in the resident’s block and that it was considering the need for insulation works due to cold bridging. Whilst it is evident from the resident’s communications to the landlord around this time that she was aware of the situation, the landlord did not confirm this situation in its June 2022 stage 2 response, nor explain its intended solution to the issue. As the landlord was fully aware of the cold bridging issue impacting the resident’s property, it is reasonable to expect more proactive communication at the earliest stage. it missed an opportunity provide clarity on its intended resolution to the issue, at this point.
It did subsequently fully explain its diagnoses of cold bridging in writing to the resident on 15 July 2022 and again in its 16 August 2022 additional stage 2 response when it also confirmed its intention to decant the resident and her family whilst insulation works were undertaken. It is noted however, that although in its 15 July 2022 communication, it told the resident that it expected to commence works in November 2022, it did not give a date for the remedial works in its 16 August 2022 response. It said it was conducting trials at that time to establish if the proposed solution would be effective. The lack of any clear timescale given for the remedial works was unreasonable however, its offer to re-apply the mould treatment in the interim shows it took some steps to minimise the effect of the issue in the meantime.
Therefore, the landlord’s eventual diagnoses of the root cause of the mould issue within the property shows it had by this stage, taken the necessary steps to enable it to identify a solution to address the resident’s reports of mould. However, the timeframe taken of more than 18 months, was unreasonable and included periods of inaction by the landlord, when it failed progress a solution or provide any update to the resident. This would have caused significant stress and inconvenience to the resident. It also failed to ensure repairs identified at stage 1 were completed. These are serious failings in the service provided and demonstrates that the landlord failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities in relation to her health conditions.
Regarding the resident’s request for a permanent decant due to the presence of mould, the landlord was not obliged to permanently re-house the resident and her family. When it referred her request for a priority move to the LA (considered further below), it included the surveyor’s report prepared on 21 July 2022. On 1 August 2022 the LA’s HMP advised the landlord it had refused the request to move the family on account of the required remedial works. The landlord explained to the resident that it was unable to permanently decant her and her family to an alternative property which was appropriate in the circumstances.
It is noted that in its August 2022 final response, the landlord said that its previous complaint handler may have incorrectly advised the resident that it was able to approve a permanent decant. It apologised and offered the resident compensation (£150) in acknowledgement that this was incorrect advice. This Service has not seen evidence to establish that incorrect advice was provided to the resident by the landlord in this respect, nonetheless, its offer in the circumstance described, was reasonable.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident, in its 16 August 2022 response, £1650 in compensation to put right the delay in addressing her mould reports. This included £150 for stress and inconvenience and £200 in recognition of the adverse affect of the mould on the resident’s health. Where a landlord admits to failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
On balance, the landlord’s offer of compensation and promise to consider providing compensation for damaged items such as clothes and furniture (if the resident provided information relating to their value and age), went some way to putting right the failings identified in this report. However, due to the lack of a clear timescale provided in its final response for the insulation works, the remedies offered were not sufficient to resolve the complaint.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 17 July 2023, that the insulation works to the resident’s property were scheduled for 27, 28 and 29 July 2023. Whilst this review has not considered the landlord’s handling of this issue from August 2022, this is indicative of a further delay in providing any permanent resolution to the damp and mould issue.

The resident’s request for a priority move.

The landlord’s priority moves policy sets out the criteria for assessing whether a resident qualifies for a ‘priority move’. The criteria for qualification for a priority move are as follows: Decants, freeing a special unit (of accommodation), move on Quota, medical reasons, succession, under-Occupation, impacted by social sector size criteria, statutory overcrowding, domestic abuse, and anti-social behaviour/harassment. Residents can qualify for a priority move on any one of these grounds.
As previously mentioned, the LA manage all of the landlord’s stock in the resident’s borough. Therefore, where it receives a request for a priority move, the landlord’s role is limited to putting forward the resident’s case to the LAHMP to assess if the criteria for additional priority have been met.
The reasons stated by the resident for a transfer was because the property was overcrowded, she was experiencing breathing difficulties from the damp in the property (considered further below) and her son was experiencing PTSD. She first requested the transfer in her May 2021 formal complaint.
On receipt of a transfer request, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to put forward the resident’s priority move application to the LA’s HMP for consideration or if it had decided not to progress the application, to advise the resident of the reasons for this and signpost to the LA housing register and any other routes to moving.
The landlord did not address the resident’s request for a transfer in its stage 1 response or elsewhere until after the resident had contacted it on multiple further occasions between October 2021 and March 2022.
Whilst in October 2021, the landlord sent the resident its ‘housing options’ leaflet, there is no evidence of it either progressing her request for a priority move or explaining to her why it had not done so. During this timeframe, the resident repeatedly asked to speak to its HSM regarding her request to move. The evidence suggests the landlord did try to call the resident on at least 2 occasions in November 2021, but was unable to get through to her. The resident continued to call and there is no evidence of the landlord attempting to call her back despite stating in its email dated 10 December 2021 that its HSM would call her. It was not until the resident’s call to the landlord on 24 March 2022, that the landlord explained to her it would need to carry out a preliminary assessment to establish if she would meet the criteria to put forward her application to the LA’s HMP.
Therefore, the landlord failed over a prolonged timeframe to properly address the resident’s request for a priority transfer. This and its failure to provide callbacks on the majority of the occasions the resident had called, is evidence of the landlord acting unreasonably.
Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord then took steps to prepare the resident’s case for referral to the LA HMP to consider if additional priority would be awarded in accordance with the allocation scheme. Its surveyor inspected the property to prepare a report for the panel to consider, along with the resident’s application and any medical evidence.
In light of reasons given by the resident for her move, including overcrowding and she and her son’s medical conditions, the landlord’s referral of her request to the LA panel was appropriate. However, its 10-month delay in taking this action and failure to fully address her request in the interim, demonstrates a service failing.
It is noted that on 16 August 2022, the landlord explained to the resident that following the LA HMP meeting on 1 August 2022, they had asked her to provide medical evidence of the resident’s sickle cell diagnoses referred to in her medical form and that the decision had been deferred until this was received.
In summary, there was an unreasonable delay in progressing the resident’s application and a lack of clear communication from the landlord regarding reasons for this. The landlord did not acknowledge these failing in either its June 2022 or August 2022 complaint responses, as such it failed to put right these failings during its complaint process.
The Ombudsman further notes that the LA HMP subsequently awarded the resident priority on health grounds in November 2022.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure under which it is required to provide a stage one response, within 10 working days. Where a resident 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. Its policy says if the resident wants to escalate their complaint, they will need to let it know within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 July 2021. As the resident’s complaint was raised on 29 May 2021, the landlord did not meet the 10-day timescale stated in its policy. This is evidence of it not following its policy.
In its stage 1 response the landlord failed to address the resident’s request for a transfer. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) makes clear that landlords must address all points raised as a complaint and provide clear reasons. The failure to address this aspect it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the resident’s concerns raised.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord also told the resident that it would leave her complaint ‘open’ with an action plan as it said whilst data loggers had been installed at the property in order for it then to discuss with her the “root cause and remedy” of the damp issue, it did not have any more information on resolution to this issue.
The action plan referred to was unclear and no updates were provided to the resident over the next few weeks. When the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 in early September 2021, her request was logged but the landlord’s internal note dated 28 September 2021 stated because there was an active action plan in place, her complaint ‘may not go to stage 2’.
Despite the resident requesting details of the said action plan on at least 2 occasions around this time, there is no evidence of the landlord confirming the details of this, nor did it escalate her complaint to stage 2 as per her request.
This indicates that the landlord was using its practice of keeping the complaint open ‘with an action plan’ as a mechanism to stop the resident from accessing stage 2 of its complaints process. This is contrary to the Code, which states landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. A comment within the landlord’s stage 2 notes confirms this as it refers to the landlord wanting to “prevent” stage 2 complaints.
This approach by the landlord does not demonstrate a positive complaint handling culture whereby landlords would use complaints as an opportunity to learn lessons and seek to improve its service delivery.
When the resident contacted it again on 24 March 2022 complaining about the lack of progress with the issues raised in her previous stage 1 complaint, the landlord logged this as a stage 2 complaint. Logging this complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process nearly 10 months after the date of its stage 1 response, rather than treating it as a new complaint, is evidence of the landlord not following its policy which says stage 2 complaints must be made within 20 working days of its stage 1 response.
Furthermore, after logging this complaint at stage 2 on 5 April 2022, it did not provide its stage 2 final response until 28 July 2022. Again, this indicates the landlord did not provide its response within the 20-working day timescale in its policy or within a reasonable timescale of the resident’s stage 2 request. This indicates the resident’s complaint remained in its process for 13 months at this stage which is unreasonable.
The landlord then went onto to provide an additional stage 2 final response approximately 2 months later in which it issued the resident with further updates. Whilst continuing communications with the resident in regard to matters raised in the complaint but not fully resolved is appropriate, calling it a stage 2 final response when one has already been issued, is not in line with its process and would have caused confusion.
Therefore, the unreasonable delays, failure to follow its own processes and actions which caused barriers to the resident being able to access its complaint process are indicative of serious failings by the landlord.
In its (first) final response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint had not been dealt with in accordance with its target timescales and offered £75 in compensation which was increased to £200 in its further final response. However, in light of the number and serious nature of failings many of which were not acknowledged by the landlord, its offer of compensation is not sufficient to put these right and resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the reports of damp and mould within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s request for a priority move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord applied interim mould treatments to areas within the property affected by condensation caused by cold bridging in response to resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, it failed to diagnose or address the underlying cause within a reasonable timeframe demonstrating a failure to take into account hers and her families’ medical vulnerabilities.
The landlord unreasonably delayed with referring the resident’s priority transfer request to the LA HMP and did not provide an explanation for this to the resident nor acknowledge or offer a remedy for this in its complaint responses.
The landlord told the resident at stage 1 that it would keep her complaint open due to an action plan in place however it then failed to communicate any updates in relation to her complaint. It also failed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 when initially requested by the resident and only did so after further requests some 7 to 8 months later, although by this stage it would have been more appropriate to raise a new complaint. The landlord went onto issue two separate stage 2 responses over the next 4 months, this was contrary to its policy and would have caused confusion.

Orders and Recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
1. Provides a written apology to the resident from an appropriate member of the senior leadership team, for the service failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident the compensation of £1,850 offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so.
3. Pays the resident additional compensation of £1000 (£2,850 including the offer made at stage 2) comprising:
  1. £400 for the delay in dealing with her request for a priority move.
  2. £600 for complaint handling failures.
4. Confirms to the Ombudsman if the insulation works to the property identified as needed to eradicate condensation due to cold bridging, have been fully completed. If they have not, to provide a timescale for completion.
5. Tells the Ombudsman if the repairs to the bathroom identified in its stage 1 response, including to the extractor fan, and the investigation of the pipe, have been completed. If they have not, the landlord should agree the timescales of the works with the resident.
6. Add timescales for responding to damp and mould into its repairs policy.
7. Self-assess and agree an action plan against the Ombudsman’s Damp and Mould spotlight report.
8. Ensures it has the resident’s vulnerabilities and those of her household recorded on its system.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Considers providing the resident further compensation for the additional delay in providing the insulation works since the date of its final response.
2. Review how it closes stage 1 complaints and escalates complaints to stage 2.