Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202104948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104948

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

29 June 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 response to the residents reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house, with a downstairs parlour that is used as an additional bedroom. The resident lives at the property with her five children.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, records sent by the landlord as part of this investigation show that she told it on 19 November 2018, that she had just had a heart attack and had a chest condition and other health issues that made her vulnerable to the effects of mould. The resident has told this Service that she has health problems and that her children have also missed school because of health issues.
The resident has an assured tenancy agreement, with protected rights that started in 2014. It sets out the residents right to have qualifying repairs done in set time scales in line with its repairs policy and the right to compensation if it fails to meet its obligations.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that sets out that it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair (including but not limited to) the internal structure. Repairs will be carried out within published timescales and categorised as an emergency repair or appointable repair. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete the work required within 24 hours. This repair priority will only be used when there is an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of a customer, occupant, or property. Appointable repairs will normally be completed within 5 and 20 working days, dependent on priority and by appointment. If the situation is causing discomfort, inconvenience, or nuisance to the occupants or a third party and are likely to lead to further deterioration to the property if the problem persists, then it will prioritise and offer an appointment within 5 working days.
Where there is a need for a repair to be inspected to diagnose the full nature of the work required, for example dampness and structural defects, inspection requests will be attended within 10 working days. Following the inspection, the inspecting officer will arrange for the repair order to be raised and agree a suitable appointment slot with the customer.
Regarding damp, the policy says that “there is a damp and condensation process in place to ensure it can diagnose and support customers to resolve this type of repair. This process may include carrying out works, detailed guidance, advice and support or further specialist investigations. We may refer to other organisations for support if we feel this would benefit customers.”
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy, with complaints responded to at stage one within 10 working days. At stage two the complaint will be reviewed by a senior manager, and a full written response sent within 20 working days. At both stages, if, it cannot provide a response within 10 working days, it will explain why and give a timescale for the response. This will usually be no longer than another 10 working days.
The landlord has a customer compensation policy and claims procedure that sets out that compensation can be paid for service failure. Amounts payable start from £50 to a maximum of £250 for loss of the use of part of a property for a period beyond the time advised for completing remedial works.

Summary of events

The information seen as part of this investigation dates to 2018, and shows that on 9 February 2018, a repair order was issued to carry out a mould treatment which was completed on 20 February 2018. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 November 2018, to say that mould growth was an annual occurrence and that she kept having to buy new furniture and throw out clothes and furnishings that were damaged by the mould. An inspection was carried out on 6 December 2018, after which, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the surveyor had told her that the issue was surface damp. She disagreed with this and said that her property was well ventilated, she has the heating on and, spray treatment arranged by the landlord previously had not worked. A stain block and painting to the bedroom ceiling was completed on 11 December 2018, and mould treatment works including a biocidal fogging to the property were completed on 30 January 2019.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 April 2019, and said that a fan was due to be fitted in the loft to help with mould. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that this was not fitted until October 2020, which was over a year later. Further works to carry out mould treatment to the front bedroom were then requested on 17 June 2109, which were completed on 29 July 2019.
On 21 August 2020, an inspection order was raised as the resident reported extensive mould throughout the property, and said that the brickwork was turning green, and that the problem started when cavity wall insulation was installed, a few years before. The inspection was completed on 7 September 2020 and the installation of a loft mounted positive input ventilation (PIV) unit was completed on 26 October 2020.The landlord issued a further order on 9 November 2020, to repaint and apply additive to the hallway; boxroom and front bed ceilings after mould treatment. This was not completed until 22 September 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2020, to complain that:

The landlord had created a mould problem in her home by installing cavity wall insulation.
She had instructed solicitors about the situation in the past but was not well enough to do that again.
The landlord had promised to fit a fan in the loft and had taken a year to do so. It had also only just arranged for a specialist contractor to assess the mould despite the resident reporting issues each year.
The mould had caused her breathing difficulties, constant coughs, and stress. The resident had also had to borrow money each year to pay for replacement clothing, bedding and furniture that had been damaged by mould. She had also had to pay people to re decorate her home as she was too ill to do it herself.
The resident said that she was at her “wits end” and that the stress was “too much”. She wanted a copy of the independent report and a log of all the reports that she had made over the years.
She wanted her landlord to compensate her for the “years of damage and decorating” that the resident said she had got into debt to pay for.

The landlord notes that on 4 February 2021, the resident sent operatives away when they arrived at her home, as they told her that they were only applying a mould treatment and not redecorating. The resident had been told that they would carry out mould treatment and all the required redecorations. Records show that the landlord had ordered this, but the resident said that this was not what the contractors had said.
The landlord sent a stage one response to the resident on 17 February 2021. It said that the complaint made at that time was regarding compensation and a skip to remove rubbish damaged by condensation. It did not uphold the complaint and found that it was “satisfied that all measures had been taken, over a period of years to investigate the issues of mould, and that there was no structural fault at the property causing condensation and subsequent mould damage”. It added that inspections had found “conclusively” that condensation was being generated which was causing mould due to lack of ventilation and adequate heating. It also noted that it had paid for skips on two previous occasions to remove mould damaged possessions and suggested that the resident apply for tenant’s home insurance. Finally, it informed the resident that this was the final stage of the complaint and if she remained dissatisfied, she should contact the Housing Ombudsman.
This Service told the resident on 9 June 2021, that at the end of the landlord’s response, it indicated that it would look at the complaint again if she provided further information or felt that the landlord had not addressed the issues in full and asked if she had done this.
On 17 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord an ongoing issue with black mould spreading throughout the property. The landlord carried out an inspection on 10 January 2022 and a job was ordered to check the PIV, and the resident was advised not to stack household items against external walls.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 March 2022 and said that:

Her property was covered in mould, and she had to wait months for any work to be done. She had to throw away carpets and furniture covered in mould, as her children were sleeping in mould covered mattresses, and breathing in toxins.
The landlord kept failing to do what they said, and every year cover up the issues instead of dealing with them, which left her with mould for nine months of the year.
The landlord had removed vents and said that it would replace them, but she had not heard anything, the job was not on the system and another operative had told her that they should not have been removed.
A specialist company had been out to inspect and told the resident that recommendations had been made, but the landlord might not pay for the work to be done.
The landlord had taken responsibility in the past and had paid £1500 compensation but that was “years” before and the resident now had to take out loans to replace her belongings, including new mattresses for her children.
Her children were missing school as they were “constantly sick” and she had breathing problems, heart disease and nerve damage issues, and the cough that she gets was “killing” her.
She lived in the house for five years with no issues with mould, until the landlord insulated the cavity walls, after which the mould problem started, and had continued since.

This Service responded on 17 March 2022, and advised the resident to ask her landlord to consider her complaint in line with its internal complaints process however, she should come back to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. The resident replied on the same day to say that she contacted her landlord on several occasions but had not had a response, the Ombudsman then contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to her complaint.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. It partly upheld the complaint and apologised for the lack of clarity and poor communication regarding the reoccurrence of mould growth. It said that it could see that there was a problem with condensation and acknowledged that a specialist company had already visited her. The company had provided a report with recommendations to help resolve the issue and the landlord had arranged for a second specialist contractor to survey her home in April 2022.
A specialist contractor inspected the resident’s home on 5 April 2022, it provided the landlord with the following findings:

There were various areas around the property where mould had formed, the resident also told them that mould in this property was an annual issue several companies had been out over the previous years to look at the property and carry out works but still the mould returned.
They did not see or record any levels of surface moisture to suggest that any of the issues occurring where something other than uncontrolled moisture produced internally migrating to various colder surfaces around the property.
The kitchen had mould in the cold external corner which was behind the fridge. The kitchen fan was tested, and it was noisy and doing less than half the extract duty it should have. The heater was also small and situated away from the corner which added to the fan not operating properly meant that moisture would migrate to that corner.
There was mould evident in the downstairs room that was used as a bedroom, this had been treated in July 2020, and should have stayed mould free for longer if the work was done correctly. Sections of the plaster had also blown, so re plastering was recommended. The contractor notes that the resident said that she could not use this room because of the mould.
No mould was reported in the lounge.
Mould was evident on the wc ceiling, and a vent had been removed.
Mould was forming at the top and bottom of the main bedroom wall.
Mould was evident in the third bedroom, and there was a small amount of substance at low level (which was inconsistent with where mould form) and might be a sign that there was moisture transfer.
The fan did not work in the bathroom and mould had spread across the ceiling.
The PIV was working in the loft, the insulation fitted was more than adequate, however, there were gaps above the bathroom ceiling. Also, there were indents in the insulation, which occurs when moisture tracks up through the building, condenses on the roof felt and drips down. The air felt fresh in the loft space.
They were confident that the problems with mould could be controlled and prevented from occurring again. Good steps had been made with the installation of a PIV however, this was due a filter change and the speed of the fan was increased.
Both the kitchen and faulty bathroom fan needed replacing, and a fan should be fitted in the wc to bring it in line with building regulations.

The resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2022, to escalate her complaint to stage two for the following reasons:

The specialist contractor had acknowledged that the landlord had made the property airtight by installing cavity wall insulation, and that with good ventilation that would not be a problem, but the ventilation in her home was inadequate.
The insulation in the loft was thick, with pieces missing and that was causing mould in the bedroom next to the bathroom.
The old air fans were of no use and needed replacing.
The landlord had created the problem and had failed “year after year” to fix it.
She currently had 30 bin bags full of old mouldy bedding; quilts; pillowcases; curtains, and carpets in the garden and she had not had any help from the landlord with costs to remove them.
School had complained about the smell of damp on her children’s uniforms.
She wanted the landlord to accept responsibility and sort the issue out “once and for all” and help with the cost of damaged belongings and redecoration.

The landlord contacted the resident on 20 May 2022, to tell her that the person who needs to investigate and respond to her stage two complaint was off sick and that it would provide a further update on 27 May 2022. It contacted her again on 15 June and said that a senior manager would review her complaint and issue a response within the next 10 days.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 21 June 2022. It apologised for the late response and explained that it was due to staff sickness. It partly upheld the complaint and said that:

It had installed new fans to replace old existing models.
Although the specialist contractor did not think that the existing loft insulation was causing any issues, it would still be replaced.
The ventilation unit in the loft was working but needed the speed setting increased, which had been done.
Mould treatment work had been completed and a three-year guarantee provided.
It wanted to arrange a joint visit with the specialist company to carry out air flow tests on the fans installed to make sure they are working correctly and produce a ventilation certificate for the property which shows that the air is circulating sufficiently. It would also assess any further issues or work required.
It offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition that the service had not met the expected standards, and the issues not resolved sooner.

The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said that she had been told by the specialist contractor that some of the work previously carried out was not adequate and that previous mould treatments were not done correctly as the mould would not have come back so quickly. She said that the offer of £150 was inadequate considering the expense that she had incurred because of the mould. She asked that the landlord come out to assess the situation as some of the work remained outstanding.
The landlord responded on the same day and said that the offer of compensation still stood, and that it would inspect the property to see what works were still required, and if there were any additional works required (not part of the damp and mould work) it would instruct a surveyor to “pick them up”.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 August 2022, and said that the landlord had now installed the correct ventilation and completed mould treatment work. However, she said that:

The landlord had offered £150 as a goodwill gesture that she did not think was adequate.
She felt that she had been badly advised over the years, in respect to leaving her heating on all the time, which she could not afford to do, moving furniture into the middle of the rooms, and leaving windows open.
Appointments had been missed or the landlord took too long to come out and inspect and then took months to complete the required works.
The landlord should have brought in a specialist a lot sooner, who could have resolved the situation earlier.
Her children had suffered ill health because of the mould, which had impacted on their school attendance. Her health had also been affected, as she had a heart attack due to stress and other health issues. She had also got into debt, as she had to constantly replace damaged items in her home.
The landlord had ignored emails that she had recently sent to it, she had been told in July 2022, that the person dealing with her repairs was on leave and would contact her on 20 July 2022. When they did not reply she emailed again on 10 August 2022, and they have referred to previous advice given in June 2022. She felt the landlord was “ridiculing” her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident has said that the situation has affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the family’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if they wish to pursue this aspect of their complaint. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the damp and mould caused the resident.

Response to reports of damp and mould

It is evident that the resident has reported issues with damp and mould every year since at least 2018. It is also evident she told the landlord on several occasions that previous treatments had not worked as the mould kept coming back. Further, she told it in November 2018, that mould growth was an annual occurrence, and disagreed with the landlord who said that the issue was surface damp (condensation). She also told the landlord that the house was well ventilated and heated, which also showed that she had an awareness of the issues that can contribute to “surface damp”.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Where the source of damp and mould was not immediately obvious, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to eliminate potential root causes and it did this by arranging mould treatment works including a biocidal fogging (completed in December 2018).
There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the property to identify if the treatments had worked. In fact, the resident contacted the landlord again in June 2019 to say that there was mould in a bedroom, and in August 2020, she reported “excessive mould” and told it that external brickwork was turning green. She also said that the problem started when the cavity walls were insulated. A further inspection was arranged, and a specialist contractor was asked to inspect the property, which was reasonable. However, the situation was not monitored, which led to further issues and the resident having to complain to the landlord.
There were also, at times, considerable gaps between the work being ordered and the actual completion dates. The resident has told us that she was left for several months waiting for repairs and evidence received supports this statement. In November 2020, a request was made to repaint and apply additive to the hallway, box room and front bedroom ceilings after mould treatment had been applied, this was not completed until September 2021; and on 2 December 2020 an order to apply mould treatment to bedroom ceilings was not completed until 26 April 2021.The resident also reports waiting for over a year for a PIV fan to be installed in the loft. This was too long and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and will undoubtedly have added to the resident’s distress and frustration.
The landlord’s surveyor concluded that the issue was related to surface damp and gave advice to the resident. Advice included leaving the heating on all the time, leaving windows open, moving furniture into the middle of the floor, and suggesting that there were too many people in the house. This advice, although, maybe given with good intent, was dismissive and did not assist the resident, who questioned how she could practically follow any of the advice given. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould actively discourages the inference or blame onto the resident for causing damp within the home.
The landlords first stage one response sent in February 2021, said that it found “conclusively” that condensation was being generated which was causing mould due to lack of ventilation and adequate heating. It also noted that it had paid for skips on two previous occasions to remove mould damaged possessions and suggested that the resident apply for tenant’s home insurance. The response was not customer focussed and did not consider the distress that the resident would have undoubtedly experienced by having to dispose of her belongings on at least two occasions to the extent that a skip was required. It also placed responsibility back on her to manage, with little support or intervention. It indicated that its findings were ‘conclusive’ and yet had only just sought the help of a specialist and had not monitored the impact of any of the recommendations made. This was not reasonable and not in line with the HHSR obligations.

The landlord’s original offer of an apology and goodwill gesture for the inconvenience was not reasonable, in that there was no rationale attached to the offer, and although in line with its compensation policy it did not consider the detriment caused to the resident over a period of several years. While this Service acknowledges that the landlord communicated a position about damage to belongings in its February 2021 response, it could have better demonstrated that it considered it, and the outcome of the considerations. It should have also signposted the resident to its own insurer for the resident to make a claim if she considered the landlord to be responsible.

When the resident contacted this Service in June 2021, she was given advice to allow the landlord the opportunity to complete its own internal complaints process. She contacted the Ombudsman again in March 2022, to say that the issue was still ongoing and that she had not had any response from her landlord. At this point the Ombudsman contacted the landlord which issued its stage one response on 1 April 2022. At this point the landlord instructed another specialist company to inspect the property and report back its findings. This had taken too long, and while this Service acknowledges this as a positive action, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident should not have had to be at point of complaint for the actions to be taken. If the landlord had monitored the impact of the recommendations made by the first specialist in late 2020, it would have known that the issue remained ongoing and taken proactive steps to prevent the reoccurrence of mould.

The delay in the landlord’s response to monitoring the damp has exacerbated the problem for the resident over a considerable period. The resident says that this has caused her significant health concerns, affected her children’s health and their attendance at school, forced her to take out debt to replace belongings, and caused distress and inconvenience by having to deal with the issues, year on year, for at least four years. Had the landlord continued to engage with the resident’s concerns of damp regularly after her first report, it could have demonstrated its commitment to finding a resolution. Repairs were often delayed, and the landlord should have realised that the situation needed further investigations and should have offered more support to the resident to resolve the issues. However, it did not do this, and there was therefore, severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, as it should not have taken the resident to contact the Ombudsman to rectify an issue that was so evidently causing severe difficulties for the resident and her children.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord sets out a two stage complaints process. However, in February 2021, it sent its stage one response and advised the resident to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied. This caused confusion to the resident, additional inconvenience, and was not in line with its own policy.
When this Service contacted it again in March 2022, it was reasonable that it responded to the residents’ concerns at stage one as there was a gap of some 13 months in between responses.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 12 April 2022, she was not contacted until 20 May 2022, when the landlord told her that the person responsible for the response was absent from work due to ill health, and that she would receive a response by 27 May 2022. It contacted her again on 15 June 2022, to say that the person was still off but that she would receive a response within 10 days. The stage two response was issued on 21 June 2022, which was two months after the request to escalate was made and not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. While the landlord was positive to keep the resident updated at points, there were periods where she went without an update for two weeks and ultimately, the landlord failed to follow its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, resulting in further delays for the resident and a delay in it responding appropriately to the resident’s concerns. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to comply with its obligations under HHSR by not taking a pro active approach to monitor the issues of damp and mould that the resident reported. Advice given was dismissive and not customer focussed. Repairs identified were not always completed in line with its repair policy and the landlord failed to consider the significant impact that this was having on the resident and her family despite her telling it, and the landlord seeing for itself the damaged belongings.
The landlord only provided one response to the resident’s complaint in 2021; it did not fully consider the repairs history when responding at stage one and two in 2022, and there were significant delays in providing its stage two response. This taken altogether, meant that the resident experienced distress and frustration as she felt that the landlord was not listening to her, despite her explaining about the impact on her and her children’s health and her finances.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this report a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for its failure to respond appropriately to her reports of damp and mould.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord to pay a total of £2300 compensation (which includes the landlords offer of £150), this comprises:

£1,200 for the delays to repairs; the lack of monitoring of the situation and the failure to recognise the impact of the situation on the resident and her family.
£300 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing updates.
£500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
£300 for its complaint handling failures.

This Service notes that the landlord has started to assess its service using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord’s review should as a minimum clearly define the service level expectations for damp and mould in its publications. It should also review its processes to ensure identified works are completed in a timely manner and set out how it monitors the works particularly post work. The outcome of the landlord’s review should be shared with the Ombudsman in writing within six weeks of the date of this report.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to review its complaint handling practice in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code going forward.