Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202215797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215797

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

27 October 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 landlords handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 6 April 2009. The property is a house with 3 bedrooms. The resident resides there with her 2 sons.
For the reasons explained below, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould between February and October 2022. On 26 February 2022, the resident told the landlord the damp and mould had returned in the bedrooms.
The landlord visited the property on 25 April 2022 and told the resident to keep the property ventilated. The landlord requested a specialist contractor to assess the damp and mould. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 11 May 2022. On 13 May 2022 she was told a supervisor would contact her. There is no evidence the resident was contacted.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2022. In her complaint she stated:
1. She was concerned the damp and mould was due to structural issues.
2. There was a delay in the landlord visiting the property and for mould treatment to be applied.
3. The landlord was not updating her and when she chased it, she was told to be patient.
4. She was concerned the mould was getting worse and effecting her son’s health.
5. She wanted the damp and mould to be fixed and the landlord to pay her compensation.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 May 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding. The resident was asked to fill out an online complaints form. The landlord told the resident a surveyor would contact her, but explained there would be a delay with this call back due to staff shortages.
On 13 June 2022, the resident told the landlord the contractor had not contacted her to arrange an appointment. The landlord’s records show it contacted the contractor, the contractor said they had been attempting to gain access to the property for some time. It is noted no evidence has been provided to this Service of communication records between the landlord and the contractor, or the contractor and the resident.
A contractor visited the resident’s property on 28 June 2022 to assess the damp and mould. The contractor’s report stated it assessed mould in the rear bedroom. The report stated it was unclear if the mould was reforming, or that mould treatment was not applied to that area when works were carried out 9 months ago. The contractor noted that mould treatment can be applied to wallpaper, which if removed will leave the wall untreated. It also stated the mould could be due to no improvements being carried out to the ventilation in the property. The contractor made the following recommendations to the landlord:
1. treat and paint the mould
2. unblock the two blocked vents
3. install an additional vent in the bedroom where there was not one
4. replace the bathroom fan.
In addition to the above, the contractor highlighted that the loft insulation could be better laid to take away colder surfaces in the bedrooms.
The contractor sent its report to the landlord on 9 July 2022. The landlord recorded on 27 July 2022 that repairs needed to be carried out on the property. The landlord’s records do not detail what work it agreed to undertake.
From 7 July 2022 the resident chased the landlord on 3 separate occasions. It responded on 28 July 2022, and said the contractor would contact her. No evidence was provided to show this call happened.
The landlord stated it completed the works on 5 September 2022. Its records show these repairs included a fan upgrade and the application of mould treatment. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the contractor to come back to the property. The landlord’s records do not detail why the resident requested this.
The resident submitted complaints on 8 and 9 September 2022. She stated she was frustrated the contractor told her an external air vent had been bricked up, when she was previously told there was no problems with the structure of the property. The resident stated she wanted compensation because the mould had damaged her blinds, a wardrobe, and the decoration of the property.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 20 September 2022, it listed the works it had competed. This included unblocking vents in bedroom 1 and 2, applying mould treatment in bedroom 1 and 3. Installing an extra vent in bedroom 3 and replacing the kitchen exactor fan.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2023. In her complaint she stated not all the works the landlord listed were completed. She stated the contractor only carried out work in 2 of the bedrooms, and she noted the landlord had not responded to her request for compensation.
In its stage 2 response on 14 October 2022 the landlord said it responded to each report of damp and mould and carried out inspections. The landlord stated the inspections confirmed that the mould was due to the build-up of condensation, not a building defect as the resident reported. It stated the resident had been provided with extractor fans, window vents and heating to control the condensation. There is no evidence the landlord provided these during the period this Service is investigating; February 2022 to October 2022.
The landlord stated as per its repairs policy residents are responsible for applying mould treatments due to condensation. It acknowledged it is difficult to resolve these issues so it would work with the resident to ensure the issue does not persist. The landlord said the resident can request another survey to assess the effectiveness of the repairs and see if further steps could be taken. The landlord did not offer compensation as it said the damage to the resident’s personal items was not caused by a building defect or by the landlord’s negligence.
In referring this matter to this Service, the resident stated the landlord refused to acknowledge the cause of the damp and mould. She raised she has continuously chased the landlord due to delays and she was not kept updated. The resident said she wanted compensation for the belongings she replaced due to mould damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges the resident has made several reports of damp and mould in the property that date back to 2009. The Ombudsman expects that complaints are raised within a reasonable period, which is usually 6 months from the issue occurring. In this case, we have considered the reports of damp and mould prior to the complaint and found that the resident reported this matter in February 2022. Prior to this, there was no record of a report about the issue for a year. The landlord stated this could be due to COVID-19. Given the length of time between the 2 reports this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of matters from February 2022 to October 2022.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident or a household members health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the damp and mould affected her son’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
This Service will however review the landlord’s response to these matters and assess whether its response was in accordance with its obligations.

The landlord’s obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states a landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
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’s repairs policy states residents are responsible for mould treatments due to condensation. The policy states the landlord may seek assistance from other organisations when assessing damp and condensation. It also states inspections will be carried out within 10 working days, and repairs completed within 5-20 working days. It will prioritise and offer appointments within 5 working days if the “situation is causing discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance…and is likely to lead to further deterioration to the property if the problem persists”.
The landlord’s complaints policy dated August 2022 states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould had returned in her property on 26 February 2022 and 1 March 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord organised an inspection of the property. The inspection was carried out on 25 April 2022, this was 39 working days after the resident’s initial report. This is significantly longer than the 10 working days stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
There is no evidence the landlord made enquiries into whether the reported issue needed to be treated as a priority and an appointment made within 5 working days as per its repairs policy. The landlord was aware the damp and mould was an on-going issue in the property. It should have communicated with the resident about any risks and carried out a risk assessment. The landlord failed to meet its agreed service level agreement and communicate effectively with the resident.
Following the inspection, the landlord instructed an external contractor to assess the cause of the damp and mould. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to a specialist contractor to allow it to correctly identify and address the issue. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected.
The landlord did not keep the resident updated about the outcome of the inspection. This led the resident to chase a response from the landlord on 2 occasions in May 2022. On both occasions she was told someone would call her, however, there is no evidence she was contacted. This led the resident to make a formal complaint on 17 May 2022. A landlord should communicate its diagnosis with the resident, sharing any relevant information, to ensure the resident has confidence in it and understands the next steps. In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was a pattern of poor communication from the landlord about the steps it was taking to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord’s poor communication in this case made the situation worse, as it added to the resident’s distress because she did not know what was happening.
On 16 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say the contractor had not been in contact with her. The landlord’s records state the contractor told the landlord they been attempting to arrange access for some time. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to update her or offer her any assistance with communicating with the contractor to arrange an appointment. Wherever possible, landlords should avoid leaving external contractors to arrange appointments with residents directly. This ensures the landlord is fully aware of all issues and the onus is not put on the resident to report these. The landlord must ensure it has effective communication with its contractors and is proactive in resolving issues around arranging appointments and gaining access to properties.
If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with a repair it must make an assessment of risk, looking at what impact the delay will have on the household. A landlord must consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include de humidifiers, support from local services, or a decant. Interim measures may not always be possible, but a landlord must show they have explored all options and explain to the resident why such measures are not being put in place. There is no evidence the landlord investigated or communicated with the resident about whether interim measures could have prevented the damp and mould from getting worse. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident and her household living with the damp and mould for 6 months with no consideration of any interim measures.
The contractor attended the property on 28 June 2022, this was 4 months after the resident reported the damp and mould. The contractor’s report was received by the landlord on 8 July 2022, and the landlord logged the repairs needed on 27 July 2022. This is reasonable as the landlord needed time to consider the report and agree what repairs it would carry out.
The landlord did not update the resident on the outcome of the contractors visit. This left the resident to chase a response from the landlord on 3 occasions between 7 July and 28 July 2022. The landlord responded on 28 July 2022 and told the resident the contractor will contact her soon to arrange an appointment. The landlord’s records show there was no communication between the landlord and resident from 28 July 2022 to 5 September 2022. The landlord must ensure it maintains contact with the resident throughout the repair process. It should also ensure it has processes in place to appropriately manage delays caused by contractors. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident to arrange an appointment directly with the contractor when the resident had previously reported issues with communication from the contractor.
The landlord records show repairs were completed on 5 September 2022. This is 130 working days after the resident first reported the issue. This is significantly longer than the 5-20 working day timescale in the landlord’s repairs policy. Although this Service accepts the landlord needed to instruct a specialist contractor and this can cause delays to repairs. This was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor on what works it completed on 5 September 2022. The records state the landlord upgraded a fan and applied mould treatment. The landlord has not provided any evidence it considered all the recommendations and suggestions made by the contractor. There is no evidence the landlord installed the additional vent or considered the adjustment of the loft insulation. The landlord should evidence its decision making on why it is or is not completing works, and this should be communicated to the resident so they are clear what steps the landlord is taking.
Although this Service has not considered events that occurred prior to February 2022, the landlord was aware the damp and mould was an on-going issue in this property. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. Instead, it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This is not resolution focused and the landlord failed to ensure they understood the root cause of the matter.
The landlord’s poor record keeping is highlighted in its stage 1 response. In its response the landlord lists the works it completed in all 3 bedrooms. When escalating her complaint, the resident said some works listed were not actually completed. To carry out an effective repairs service a landlord must have detailed records of what repairs have been completed and if any repairs are still outstanding. Efficient record keeping and being data led allows a landlord to better understand the resident, the property, and the issue being reported, so that they can consider the most appropriate response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2022 and asked if the contractor could come back to the property. The landlord did not contact the resident back to ask why she had requested this. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand what issues remained outstanding so that it could take steps to put things right at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was the first time the landlord addressed the cause of the damp and mould with the resident. The landlord stated the inspections confirmed the mould growth was due to a build-up of condensation, not due to a building defect. However, the contractor’s report does not mention condensation. It states the mould could be due to issues with the previous mould treatment or that no improvements were carried out to the ventilation of the property. The contractor stated once the ventilation was improved and the mould treated the mould would not return. Although, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response it will consider adding additional means of ventilation, there is no evidence the landlord investigated whether there was adequate ventilation in the property. If the landlord was unsure on what steps it needed to take to address points raised in the contractor’s report, it must go back to the contractor to clarify this and arrange a further inspection if necessary.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to ignore the residents’ concerns that she had no external air brick. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that this would not have attributed to the mould problems. However, there is no evidence that the landlord or the contractor investigated whether this could be a cause of the damp and mould. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has a legal obligation to repair the structure or exterior of the property. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to go back to the contractor and ask them to assess whether there is adequate ventilation in the property and whether there was a repair obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it put onus on the resident being responsible for mould treatment due to condensation. Even if a landlord believes occupancy factors are contributing to damp and mould, this does not mean the landlord has no responsibility. Landlords should recognise some homes were not designed with modern living in mind. Landlords must take reasonable steps in partnership with residents in these circumstances, including considering improving ventilation or other appropriate measures. As per the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, it is important for landlords to communicate in a manner that reflects a shared responsibility to tackle issues around condensation, which avoids residents feeling they have been unfairly blamed.
Once a landlord has completed repairs it must take action to monitor the effectiveness of those repairs. In its stage 2 response it was unreasonable for the landlord to put the onus on the resident to request a further survey to assess the effectiveness of the repairs and to see if any further measures are needed. A landlord must take a proactive approach to repairs. Having an aftercare programme in place can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the problem again.
In summary, there were delays in investigating and carrying out repairs to the damp and mould. The landlord did not complete sufficient investigations to establish the cause of the damp and mould. It failed to carry out a risk assessment, or consider any interim measures required to manage any risks to the resident and her household. After the repairs were completed, the landlord failed to investigate why the resident was asking for the contractor to return to the property. Throughout the repair process there was poor communication and record handling from the landlord. The landlord failed to acknowledge any of these failings to the resident in its complaint responses.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays and her time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. The resident claimed damages for personal belongings however there is no evidence to substantiate that claim. This Service would expect the landlord to consider whether a referral should be made to its insurer.
Following the complaint, the landlord has self-assessed itself against the damp and mould spotlight report published in October 2021. The landlord published an interim damp and mould policy in December 2022, this was reviewed and revised in June 2023. The policy takes into consideration the Ombudsman’s recommendations which is a positive step to the landlord improving its response to damp and mould.
In June 2023, the landlord also implemented a new repairs policy. The section on damp and condensation was amended to reflect the new damp and mould policy. Although the policy still states tenants are responsible for mould treatments due to condensation, this has been changed to “minor treatments.” This shows the landlord is aware it needs to take responsibility for damp and mould in its properties, and hopefully will result in residents no longer feeling blamed or responsible for condensation issues.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 in compensation for the resident’s stress and inconvenience, and time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge the residents’ complaint within 5 working days as per the Code. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay. However, if a landlord knows it cannot meet the relevant timescales it must keep the resident updated on when to expect a response.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint it asked her to submit an online complaint form. The Code states that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain and provide different channels to make a complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to submit a further complaint online.
The Code states landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought by the resident. The landlord should have contacted the resident to gain understanding of the issue around the missing airbrick and carry out an investigation of the complaint before issuing a response. By not investigating the resident’s concerns, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this complaint at the earliest stage.
The resident chased the landlord twice for a response to her complaint in July 2022. The landlord did not follow through on agreements it made to contact her.
After the landlord completed the repairs, the resident submitted two further complaints. The landlord acknowledged these complaints within a reasonable timescale and agreed to contact her. However, it did not say when the resident would expect a response. The landlord failed to manage the residents’ expectations and provide a resolution focused response.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response after 87 working days, this is longer than the 10 working days stated in the Code. It is unreasonable for a landlord to take this long to respond to a complaint. In its response the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay or that it failed to keep the resident updated. This was an unreasonable delay and the landlord’s poor communication resulted in stress and inconvenience for the resident as she had to keep chasing an update.
The landlord’s response did not address the resident’s complaint about the lack of an external airbrick or the delays with inspections and applying mould treatment. It also did not address the residents request for compensation. The landlord failed to take a holistic and customer centric approach, which left the resident in the complaint’s procedure without a full response to the issues she raised. This led the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The resident chased a response to her request to escalate the complaint. Although this was within the 5 working day deadline for the landlord to respond, the landlord did not tell the resident how to escalate the stage 1 complaint or when to expect a response. The landlord also failed to adhere to the Code and provide the resident with information on how to contact this Service. This made the experience more difficult and frustrating for the resident.
The landlord’s records shows that communication from the resident often fell through the gaps between different departments. Internal emails were sent asking someone to notify the resident her complaint had been escalated to stage 2. However, no one took ownership to communicate with the resident so she was never updated. Landlords must ensure the effective operation of communication channels between different teams. This will ensure all parties have access to accurate and current information and will avoid unnecessary delays. The confusion on which department was communicating and updating the resident led to missed timescales and delayed the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response within 22 working days on 14 October 2022, which was 2 days over the landlord’s 20 working-day time limit. Although we accept a delay like this would not usually cause an issue for a resident. Due to the delays experienced at stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure, this Service would have expected the landlord to tell the resident of the short delay. The landlord failed to show it had learnt from its previous failings in this case.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the resident’s specific concerns about accountability and communication. The resident raised these issues, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to them. By not investigating the resident’s concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix wider problems with how it handled the complaint.
In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, did not answer the resident’s complaint, and took too long. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about her complaint. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the multiple failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In August 2023, the landlord implemented a new complaints policy. The new policy states the landlord will complete an annual self-assessment against the Complaint Handling Code. This should assist the landlord to identify any mistakes, learnings and if improvements to its service are needed.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This must be from a senior member of staff.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1050 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £800 for the stress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused.
2. £250 for the failures identified with landlord’s complaints handling.
The landlord to evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to inspect and obtain a survey on whether there is adequate ventilation in the property. If further repairs are identified the landlord must agree the works with the resident and agree dates for the completion of the works. The landlord must provide evidence to this Service this is completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to complete a case review on the issues identified in this report and its overall failures and provide the case review to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so it should complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.