Southern Housing Group Limited (202126007)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126007

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 July 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
1. Damp and mould in the property and repair to window.
2. The complaint handling.

Background & Summary

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 19 September 2016. The property is a third floor, 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
There are no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident complained that her reports of damp and mould in the property date back to 2016. There is evidence of reports made by the resident to the landlord, for an investigation of possible leaks from the above flat that might be affecting her bedroom ceiling in December 2016. The repairs log provided by the landlord also confirm that the landlord received reports about extensive mould affecting the property in 2017, 2018, 2019 and that it raised repairs to investigate damp patches and carry out mould washes to resolve the issue.
The resident formally complained about the damp and mould on 14 January 2020, and that it had been affecting her child’s health. The evidence shows that some investigations were carried out by the landlord where it determined that there were no signs of a leak from its inspection of the above flat and that further investigations were required. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 30 January 2020 and explained that its previous inspection determined that the cause of the mould was likely due to condensation as a result of poor ventilation.
It explained that moisture trackers were offered to ascertain that condensation was the cause of the mould. But as it was not accepted by the resident, it left her a leaflet on how to prevent and treat mould. It further said that given the persistence of the mould, despite its previous treatments, it would arrange a further visit to her property and concluded the response with an offer of £25 as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord carried out a survey of the property on 12 March 2020 and found evidence of mould in various parts of the property. It recommended a damp proof report to be carried out and works to the vents, air bricks, mould wash and re-decorative works.
In April 2020, the landlord’s internal emails noted that it informed the resident that any repairs would be delayed until after covid restrictions had been eased. It sent a follow up response to the resident on 10 June 2020 and apologised for the severe delays experienced in completing the works. It confirmed arrangements for a post inspection of works and offered £150 to the resident in recognition of its service failures (delays, missed appointments) which the resident later accepted on 11 November 2020.
Its records further indicated that works were carried out between 1 April 2021 and 16 June 2021 to the external air bricks, vents, kitchen extractor fan and bathroom extractor fan. It also noted that a mould wash, replastering, and paint works to bathroom ceiling and walls were completed. Based on the evidence, the resident did not raise further concerns about damp and mould until September 2021. This report therefore focusses on events that occurred from September 2021 until March 2022, investigated through the landlord’s complaints process.
It is also noted that the resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about the maintenance of the communal areas in December 2021, which the landlord addressed as part of its stage two complaint response regarding damp and mould. The resident has been advised that this aspect of her complaint would not form part of this investigation, as it has not yet completed the landlord’s complaints process.
The Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her child’s health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causations of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Landlord obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord has a legal duty under the Homes (Fitness for human Habitation) Act 2018, to make sure that its rented houses and flats are ‘fit for human habitation’, which means that they are safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm.
Under its repairs policy the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. It will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It set no timescales for completing routine repairs but noted that they would be completed as quickly as possible.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint handling process according to its policy. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within 1 working day and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage two complaints within 20 working days.
It will not exceed a further 10 working days where an extension is required.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments as redress where it has determined a failure in services provided to its residents. These include missed or failed appointments, not following policies or procedures and failure or delays in undertaking repairs.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal emails dated 8 September 2021, noted that it had passed an enquiry from the resident to its surveying team to attend for a survey. It said that the resident expressed concerns about damp and mould within the property in 2020 which she felt was not properly resolved. The landlord noted that it had attended various times to complete mould washes and repaint the affected areas, but the main issue had not been addressed. It had an appointment booked for 28 September 2021 to install data loggers that was cancelled. It said that a voice message was left for the resident that they were unable to attend, and it asked her to make a new appointment for the following week. It arranged for an operative to attend to a faulty window in the back bedroom as it was stuck shut.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2021. She complained that:
1. Following a complaint lodged in January 2020, some remedial works were carried out to resolve persistent mould growth due to water ingress on the external walls. During this process, extensive investigations were carried out, new fans were fitted in her bathroom and kitchen, a replacement plate fitted above her bedroom window and a full moisture study was carried out.
2. In December 2020, a surveyor visited to carry out to carry out an audit of the property. During the visit she explained that the problem had persisted. The surveyor agreed that the matter required further investigation, but she had not received any further update on the matter since then.
3. There had also been no further updates since December 2020 regarding a faulty window in the property.
4. She was offered two appointments on 28 September 2021 to install equipment for a moisture study and to collect them on 12 October 2021, but the appointment was not attended nor was any explanation offered for the non-attendance.
5. She was concerned that the mould growth would exacerbate her child’s skin condition in the colder months.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord corresponded with staff regarding the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on the same day.
The landlord wrote the resident regarding the stage one complaint on 21 October 2021. It advised her that it would need to extend the response by another 10 working days as it was still gathering information.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one response on 4 November 2021. It said:
1. It was unable to arrange the appointment scheduled for 28 September 2021 as the operative was unable to attend due to fuel shortage. It said the appointment was re-arranged and the issue was currently being monitored to determine the next course of action.
2. It did not identify a service failure regarding its handling of the damp and mould as its contractors had attended and completed works within reasonable timeframes of the issue being reported.
3. Its records show that a faulty window was reported in June 2020 and December 2020. It acknowledged that the outstanding repair had taken longer than anticipated and upheld this aspect of the complaint. It said there was an action plan was in place to complete the repairs.
On 9 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update following its visit on 12 October 2021. She said the following works were proposed but she had not received any further updates since then:
1. Installation of insulation and a suspended ceiling across the entire flat.
2. Installation of insulating panels around all windows.
3. Amendments to vents in all windows.
4. The replacement of all radiators with type 21 convector radiators.
During this contact she said that the manager who had visited advised her not to expect any communication, for around 7-10 days from the date of the visit, to allow for a formal plan to be put in place. She had agreed to close her outstanding complaint on the premise that the landlord would implement what was promised. However, she would like the complaint to stay open or be provided regular updates. She re-iterated the effects of the delays on her children’s health and said the mould had been spreading in the colder months.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two on 15 November 2021. She said:
1. One patch of mould had developed since her last contact, and she would have to clean it herself and run a dehumidifier as she had done every year in order to deal with the issue.
2. Her children were suffering the effects of exposure to black mould, but the landlord was not treating the matter with the urgency required.
According to the landlord’s internal emails on 16 November 2021, the resident called to find out why her stage two complaint had not been acknowledged. It noted that its surveying team were working on the works specification and asked the relevant team to make contact with the resident and explain when the works would be carried out. It noted that the resident had asked for a permanent solution to the black mould affecting her children’s health or a temporary resolution in the interim.
The landlord said in an internal email to staff on 29 November 2021, that the resident called for an update on the works. The member of staff noted that there were no updates on the system and asked if the resident could be contacted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2021 and asked for an update on her complaint.
On 21 December 2021, the resident expressed concerns around the delays in responding to her stage two complaint. She said she was informed that the complaint would be answered within 20 working days, but she was concerned that she had not received any further communication and that her request for a mould wash in the interim had not been follow up. She said she had been using a dehumidifier to deal with the issue, but this was not effective as the mould growth remained persistent. She said she had been using her own resources to clean and maintain the affected areas, which had caused disruption and hardship to her household. She said her family had been consistently sick due to being exposed to the conditions and asked for a resolution before close of office for the Christmas break.
On 24 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and asked for an extension of the complaint response. It said it would respond by 18 January 2022. It also discussed in an internal email that it contacted the resident on 23 December 2021 and that another catch up had been booked for 11 January 2022 with her.
The landlord’s internal communication between 23 December and 31 December 2021, noted that it discussed plans to commence works in the property. It discussed contractor availability and issues that might possibly be causing mould in the property. Its surveying team advised in an email that there were no faults identified with the external fabric of the building. They said that the root cause was predominantly cold spotting, caused by warm humid air hitting the cold concrete fabric of the ceiling, causing condensation. They said the best preventative measure was to complete the works specified and to also use this as a trial for preventative measures against mould and damp in any of the other properties where similar issues were reported.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord’s records noted that it had spoken to the resident and arranged to visit them on 13 January 2022. It said the specification of works would be discussed so that everyone would know the scope of works. It noted that due to the extent of works required that it may be necessary for the resident to move out whilst the works were being undertaken and that they would discuss this with her. The specification of works proposed to the bedrooms, living room, bathroom were:
1. Batten out ceiling and fixing of joists for suspended ceiling.
2. Overboard new ceiling 12.5 mm square edge plaster board.
3. Scrim tape all joints.
4. Caulk all wall to ceiling abutments and prepare for decoration.
5. Paint ceiling with white emulsion.
6. overboard window reveals with insulated plasterboard including the head.
7. Fill, calk, and paint on completion with white emulsion.
8. Remove all pvc casements and supply and fit new trickle vents in each casement.
On 13 January 2022, the surveying team attended the resident’s property to meet with her in relation to her complaint. It discussed the decant but noted that this was not an option the resident was open to due to the disruption. It discussed the scope of works with the resident and noted that the following queries would be raised with other staff:
1. No invasive inspection had been carried out internally to walls.
2. The ceilings were to be insulated however external walls had been left off.
3. The works would need to be completed room by room, so as not to cause too much disruption. They noted that there was no storage, so asked that items should be moved into the centre of the rooms and covered so they could work around then.
4. The resident’s son had an air purifier, so there must be no dust when the works were being carried out.
5. Further reports would be provided to the resident once there were more answers.
In an internal email dated 16 February 2022, it discussed that the resident should be contacted to schedule in the works and advised of the duration. It said that although the resident had requested a mould wash and treatment paintworks, it did not feel this could be done before the other works. It noted that the resident was managing the problem herself by frequently washing the mould down.
The resident chased up an update on her stage two complaint on 18 February 2022. She asked the landlord to issue the final response and provide a full and robust plan of action that takes account of all factors within 5 days. She advised that failure to do so would result in her contacting this Service.
The resident sent further chases on 24 February 2022 and on 1 March 2022, where she informed the landlord that she had sought advice from this Service and asked the landlord to provide the stage two response by 4 March 2022. The landlord responded the same day that the relevant team would respond to her accordingly.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident. It said:
1. Its response was further to its telephone conversations with the resident on 23 December 2021 and 17 January 2022.
2. It had tried to alleviate the issue of ongoing damp and mould in the property previously, but it had become apparent that more complex works were needed to prevent the cold bridging that the property suffered from especially in the winter months.
3. Its internal repairs team had established remedial works programme which they discussed with her. Its surveying project team, who manage disrepair casework were reviewing this specification and a designated manager would contact her directly and take ownership of her case and manage it through to completion. It upheld this aspect of her complaint.
4. Bedroom window – There had been several appointments booked for its contractors to resolve the repair, but they had not attended, and the window remained shut. A further appointment had been booked and agreed with her for 15 March 2022. It upheld this part of her complaint.
5. It was satisfied that teams across its organisation had made considerable efforts to assist and resolve her complaints, but it was clear it had not always communicated those efforts with her effectively. This resulted in significant disruption to her and her family.
6. It offered £300 in recognition of its delays in responding to the stage two complaint and an additional £30 for the missed appointments. It asked the resident to respond if she wished to accept it offer as full and final settlement of her complaint.

Post complaint actions

The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 9 March 2022. She complained that the landlord had failed to effectively address her concerns about damp and mould. She said the condition with mould remained extensive in various areas of her home, despite her best efforts to keep to the terms and conditions of her tenancy.
The landlord’s internal email on 16 March 2022, noted that the resident asked for works to be done in the property whilst she awaited an update from the Ombudsman. It communicated about the possibility of a temporary decant for the resident to facilitate the repairs in her property.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord’s complaints team chased the relevant services for an update on the specification of works and if works had started.
The landlord met with the resident on 5 May 2022 to discuss works and decant. It noted that the resident was concerned about being decanted, particularly to another flat in their block due to their concerns about anti-social behaviour. It said that the resident would also like to know the scope of works and the timescale for the works to be completed. It noted that:
1. There was mould in the window reveal of the living room and also in the bedrooms.
2. The main bedroom had mould to the ceiling and the corner of the wall (external wall)
3. The children’s bedroom also had mould to the ceiling and the external wall.
4. The bathroom ceiling and the entrance hall had mould (above the door).
5. It advised the resident that it would liaise with the surveying team and report back to her shortly.
The resident informed the landlord on 12 May 2022 that despite its assurances that her concerns about damp and mould would be managed by its disrepair team, no one had contacted her since its stage two response.
The damp inspection report (dated 26 May 2022) provided to the landlord by its contractors noted that:
1. An inspection of the property was completed on 19 May 2022.
2. There were no visible defects that were likely to be causing internal mould issues from the external observations.
3. It found mould growth or spotting in the front bedroom, bathroom, hallway, kitchen, rear bedroom and living room.
4. It noted that the mould was due to moisture laden air setting on cold surfaces resulting in condensation. It said that it was unlikely that any of the mould was due to plumbing leaks from above.
It recommended the following works:
1. Apply localised hardboard or polythene and dust sheet protection.
2. Install vents to the rooms indicated on the plan to promote fresh warmed air circulation.
3. Wash down affected surfaces with a fungicidal solution. It advised that it would be necessary to apply anti-mould paint or sealant to these surfaces when next decorating. It noted that the wash will eradicate mould spores, but ingrained mould staining will only be excluded by redecoration.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord’s internal email noted that the surveying team had previously attended the property and recommended works. It noted that a property had been set aside for the resident’s use and had been awaiting confirmation of the proposed decant based on agreement with the resident. It further said that it had since received a report from a damp specialist working on behalf of its contractor and that the scope of works suggested would cause minimal disruption for the resident and less invasive with the purpose of resolving the damp and mould issue. It noted that it would also monitor the effectiveness with the resident to ensure they were happy with the works delivered. It said it had also completed a window repair in March 2022.
It also agreed a joint inspection with the resident for 16 June 2022 to discuss the proposed plan of works.
The landlord contacted this Service on 13 July 2023, in response to our request for additional information and advised that they completed the works on 21 February 2023. It also completed a post inspection and noted that works were completed to an excellent standard, that the property had been redecorated and that a void deep clean was carried out. It further noted that the property was ready to be handed back to the resident, thereby suggesting that the resident was decanted to facilitate the works.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Damp and mould in the property and repair to window.

It is evident from the history of this case that the resident had persistently raised concerns about damp and mould since the start of her tenancy. It is also clear from the evidence that the landlord had made attempts, prior to receiving her complaint in October 2022, to investigate its source and carried out some treatments to address it. The landlord also acknowledged throughout the life of the case that the resident’s concerns were valid, and it sought ways to resolve it.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 October 2022, due to a lack of updates regarding the ongoing problem of damp and mould in the property. In an earlier communication before the complaint, the landlord noted that an appointment previously arranged with the resident, for 28 September 2022, to install data loggers was not attended but it noted that a voicemail was left for her to call back and arrange a new appointment. The resident however, cited in her complaint that the appointment was cancelled without any explanation. Whilst this Service is unable to determine the exact events that occurred, the landlord should have followed up the phone call to the resident with a letter or email for best practice. The letter should have explained what went wrong and how to rearrange the appointment. This caused some confusion as the resident remained unclear as to what happened.
The evidence indicates that the landlord promptly arranged a visit on 12 October 2022, to the resident’s property on receiving her complaint. It also responded to her complaint on 4 November 2022 and advised that plans were underway to resolve the damp and mould. The resident however chased up on 9 November 2021 (19 working days after) that works proposed had not been followed up. The resident requested regular updates and reiterated the effects of the mould on her children’s health and continued to chase for updates in November 2021 and December 2021. She informed the landlord on 21 December 2021, that her request for a short-term resolution had been ignored, and expressed concerns over the lack of contact and that the delay was causing hardship for her household as she was using her resources to treat the mould. The lack up progress update from the landlord is unreasonable and does not demonstrate that it provided a customer focused service. The delay and poor communication would have caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
There is no evidence that the resident’s request for a short-term resolution was considered nor were her concerns about the impact of the mould on her children’s health. Based on the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord did not contact the resident until 23 December 2021, 52 working days after its inspection on 12 October 2021. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident distress, uncertainty, and frustration. Although the landlord noted that it contacted the resident on 23 December 2021, we have not seen a summary of what was discussed or agreed with the resident from its case notes.
The landlord appeared to have learnt from its errors and contacted the resident on 6 January 2021. It arranged to visit her on 13 January 2022 to discuss the works specification with her. During this visit, it discussed the scope of works and discussed decanting her to facilitate the works which it noted that the resident was not keen on. As a result, it arranged to have further discussions with the relevant staff to find other ways of completing the works with the resident in situ, with minimum disruption. It took into account that the resident’s child had an air purifier and noted that there must be no dust whilst works were being done. The landlord’s actions at this stage, in communicating its plans and scope of works and in offering decant are appropriate, though this Service would expect to see this approach earlier in the process.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord discussed works specification and noted that the resident would be contacted to schedule in the works and advise her of the duration. The landlord discussed that it did not feel the mould wash and treatment requested by the resident should be done before the other works, but it is unclear if this was communicated to the resident. Whilst it is noted that a lot of discussions were being had internally, regarding the resident’s outstanding repairs, it was not often clear what the exact plans were and if these were being communicated to the resident. The resident commented on this in her email to the landlord on 18 February 2022, where she asked for a definitive plan of action. This showed that the landlord had not learnt from its earlier mistakes in keeping clear and regular communications with the resident and updating her on its actions or plans. This is not appropriate as a clear plan of action had still not been finalised, nearly 4 months after its initial inspection of 12 October 2021.
As of 9 March 2022, when the landlord issued its stage two response, it had still not agreed a date for the works to commence with the resident. It assured her that its disrepair team would manage the outstanding repairs and that a designated manager would take ownership and monitor the case through to completion. It acknowledged that despite its efforts to assist with her complaints, it had not communicated those efforts to her effectively. Although the landlord accepted that it failed to keep the resident regularly updated, we have seen that it did not learn from its mistakes. Based on the evidence, there was no further update to the resident until 5 May 2022, when it met with her to discuss works and decant. These delays are unreasonable, more so the poor communication, which left the resident unclear of its actions and of the timescales for the works to be completed.
We have also seen from the evidence provided that the landlord engaged its contractor to complete a damp inspection report which was completed on 26 May 2022 and that the works were finally completed on 21 February 2023. The evidence provided also indicates that the resident was decanted from the property to enable the works. The events that lead to the prolonged delays (from May 2022 until February 2023) in completing the works are unclear and only referenced in this report for context. It is however evident that the resident had experienced a poor service and unnecessary delays as a result of the landlord’s poor communication.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould published in October 2021, outlines that it should be a high priority for landlord’s and that they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Whilst it is evident that the landlord proactively sought ways to address the resident’s report about damp and mould, it was often slow in communicating its plans and actions with her, thereby leaving her feeling unheard and uncertain about what was being done to address the matter. This would have caused the resident further distress and frustration particularly in light of her concerns about the impact the mould was having on her child’s health.
Although the landlord took reasonable steps in arranging various visits (including a damp report post complaints process), and offering decant, its failure to provide regular feedback and a clear explanation for the delays in resolving the repairs left the resident unclear of her options. Its updates were mostly prompted after several chases leading to poor customer service, causing frustration and inconvenience to the resident.

Repairs to window

Part of the concerns raised by the resident in her stage one complaint was an outstanding repair to her window. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that the repair was reported in June 2020 and December 2020, but it failed to set out clear actions on what was being done to put things right.
Based on the evidence the faulty window was reported on 3 June 2020. Although the landlord was put on notice of this repair and chased in December 2020, it did not complete it until 15 March 2022, nearly two years after it was reported. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address this severe delay in its response and provide details of actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again. It said in the response that its operatives failed to attend several appointments booked for the repair, but it did not acknowledge the inconvenience this would have caused to the resident. This delay was unreasonable and a significant failing, particularly since the landlord has not provided clear reasons for why it took so long. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
In light of the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property and the repairs to the window.

The complaint handling.

The landlord’s stage one response was delayed by 11 working days, but it followed its complaints policy by notifying the resident of the delays and requesting an extension for a further 10 working days. Its response was however vague, not providing clear details of its actions regarding the resident’s complaint about the damp and mould. It responded that her appointment scheduled for 28 September 2021 was cancelled, but that it had been rearranged with no clear details of the date of the appointment. Although it accepted that the appointment was cancelled without prior notice, it did not consider this to be a service failure despite its complaints policy clearly noting a missed or cancelled appointment as a service failure. This is not appropriate as it should have acknowledged that it got things wrong, apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and clearly set out actions it had already taken or intended to take to put things right.
The stage one response also failed to fully address all the issues raised by the resident. Whilst it acknowledged that it had failed to undertake repairs required to the window, it did not provide any clear outcomes or offer compensation for the failures identified, which subsequently led to the escalation of the complaint shortly after the response. This would have caused the resident frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble in pursing the matter. Further, the landlord failed to use the complaints process effectively and seek to provide a resolution at the earliest opportunity.
The stage two response was also delayed by almost 4 months. Whilst it is noted that the landlord requested an extension of the complaint, this occurred after several chases from the resident, 29 working days after the complaint was submitted. Although the landlord informed the resident that it aimed to respond to her complaint by 18 January 2022, we have seen that the response was not issued until 9 March 2022. This was after much chasing from the resident, and the resident advising the landlord that the matter would be escalated to this Service if it failed to respond. This is unreasonable, as this Service would expect landlord’s to resolve a complaint at the earliest possible opportunity. If it anticipated delays, it should have managed the resident’s expectations from the outset, being clear where a desired outcome is unrealistic. Its failure to do so would have caused the resident further distress and frustration.
As with the stage one response, there was no clear plan of action or resolution to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould in her property. The resident waited four months for the response, but it failed to provide specific details such as the works agreed, a date for the repairs to commence and the expected timeframe for completion. The landlord appeared to have learnt from its earlier mistakes and acknowledged the delays in responding to the stage two complaint. It offered £300 in compensation. Whilst this is appropriate, it failed to acknowledge the detriment to the resident as a result of the delays in carrying out the repair to her window.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that as part of its response to complaints, it would offer a remedy that reflects the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment this may have caused, taking into account all of the circumstances. Based on the evidence seen, it did not adhere to its policy, and it also failed to consider the length of time that the resident had been waiting for a resolution to the damp and mould issue in the property, which at the time of its response was close to a 6-month delay (October 2021 to March 2022). It offered £30 for the missed appointments but this does not reflect the failures identified in its complaint handling, the time and trouble to the resident and the frustration the delays would have caused to her. In light of this, there is maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property and repair to window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address the resident’s report about and mould and the repair to her window within a reasonable period. Whilst it is noted that its policy does not set out clear timescales for completing routine repairs, it took a prolonged period of at least 8 months to agree the works required. It did not provide clear reasons for the delays, and it failed to keep a clear line of communication with the resident throughout the life of the case.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at stage one and two were both delayed. It demonstrated some learning in acknowledging the delays and offering compensation, but the responses failed to provide any clear directions on the next steps. The landlord did not acknowledge the detriment to the resident as a result of the delays in resolving the outstanding repairs in the property.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Ensure that a senior member of staff apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £330 already offered (if it has not yet been paid to her).
3. Pay an additional £1050 in compensation broken down as:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. £200 for time and trouble of chasing the window repair for two years.
  3. £600 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the damp and mould in the property and the lengthy delay in the repair to the window.
Update its repairs policy to include the timescales for responding to routine repairs.
Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. It should also update its complaints handling policy to ensure that it includes the timescales for acknowledging stage two complaints.
Review this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould and the report’s recommendation for a separate damp and mould policy. Within 8 weeks of the date of this order, to provide this Service with an action plan on how it will implement the recommendations of the spotlight report.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

Review its compensation policy to ensure that it provides a clear guide on how much it would offer as financial redress where service failure is identified.