Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202401793)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. She lives with her partner and her daughter. The resident’s daughter is vulnerable due to having heart disease. The landlord said it was aware of this condition on 23 March 2023. The resident reported damp and mould in the property from 23 March 2023. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her and her family’s health, particularly as her daughter would be vulnerable to respiratory conditions. This led her to raise a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There was unreasonable delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant that it did not sufficiently monitor the completion of the work to ensure that it was completed within a reasonable timeframe.
6. The landlord’s poor internal and external communication meant that the resident had to continually chase up the landlord which was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
7. It failed to take account of the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability that it was aware of in ensuring that the work was prioritised to ensure timely completion of the work.
8. The landlord failed to log the resident’s complaint causing unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident in having to chase this up several times. This unnecessarily extended the complaints process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her and her daughter’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. However, we can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.

What we did investigate

10. We have investigated the period from the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould on 23 March 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 28 March 2024.
11. The landlord’s repair records show the date of the resident’s initial report of damp and mould was made by phone on 23 March 2023. She advised the landlord of damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom and a large damp patch on the ceiling. The landlord noted that this could indicate a roof leak. The landlord stated that it needed to complete repairs urgently as the resident’s daughter was vulnerable due to heart disease. The landlord raised 2 works orders the same date to check for leaks from the roof and to reseal the bedroom and kitchen windows. It would book a mould treatment but noted that this would not resolve things if there was a roof leak. These were all appropriate actions to take.
12. The resident phoned the landlord on 30 March 2023, and it advised her that the window resealing repairs were booked in on 11 April 2023. The landlord chased the roofing repairs internally and it arranged an appointment for 3 April 2023. The landlord also raised a works order also on 31 March 2023 to complete a mould treatment that it completed on 26 April 2023 which was 18 working days after it raised the order. This would have been in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 20 working days for appointable repairs. However, this was 23 working days after the resident’s initial report, albeit the delay was small.
13. The landlord’s initial approach was generally in line with its damp and mould policy. This states it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where this results from repair issues.
14. After the landlord checked the roof on 3 April 2023, there was delay in it raising some follow-on work. The resident chased the landlord on 26 April 2023. She advised the landlord that she had been told that air vents were required in the roof. She said that operatives had visited twice to complete the window resealing work, but they came without ladders so were unable to complete this. The landlord chased this up internally on the same date. The repairs had at this point exceeded the repairs policy timescale as above which was inappropriate.
15. The landlord emailed its damp and mould team on 19 May 2023 to advise that the roof vents work was incomplete. It tried to phone the resident the same date, however, given that the resident had chased this up a month ago, the landlord should have actioned this sooner. It was unable to get through, and it could have followed this up in writing such as by email or text, but we have not seen a record that this happened which was inappropriate.
16. The landlord did not arrange a surveyor’s visit until 15 August 2023 following the resident’s further report of damp and mould of 10 July 2023. An earlier survey could have identified the causes of the damp and mould and the fact that a tree required to be cut down or trimmed to allow the roof vents to be installed as per the landlord’s record of an operative visit of 24 July 2023. By this point, the resident had purchased her own products to try to resolve the issue and according to the landlord she requested on 14 August 2023 that the landlord cancel the inspection. She said she would call again if the issue recurred.
17. The landlord arranged a further surveyor inspection for 18 September 2023, but it cancelled this. The landlord raised a mould treatment works instead which was completed on 2 October 2023. Given the landlord’s earlier observations about this not resolving the issue, it was important to complete a survey to identify all necessary works. The landlord’s internal email 18 September 2023 stated that it kept sending a multi skills operative rather than a bricklayer for the window sealing work. It repeated this in its email of 22 November 2023. It also noted that as the vents were still not installed in the roof that damp was coming through onto the upstairs ceilings and walls. This evidenced a lack of appropriate management of the required works to ensure that they were completed in a reasonable timeframe.
18. The landlord did not complete a damp and mould inspection until 20 October 2023. Its damp and mould contractor provided a quote on 6 November 2023. This was to complete a mould treatment, to check and upgrade fans in the bathroom and kitchen, check the loft insulation and provide a written report which we have seen. The report said to prioritise the works due to the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability.
19. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing its schedule of works until 28 January 2024. This listed the window sealing works, works to reseal around the front door, the roof vents, relaying insulation in the loft to ensure no cold bridging. It would apply mould treatment and refix loose wallpaper. The landlord noted in its final complaint response that the roof vents and window sealing work was completed on 21 March 2024. It replaced the loft insulation on 4 April 2024. It had taken over a year for some of the work to be completed which was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and repairing obligations.
20. The resident advised us during this investigation that some of the work was not completed until early 2025. The landlord’s repair records state that work that was due for completion on 24 June 2024 but ‘no access’ was reported including the window sealing work’. Therefore, it is not clear when the landlord completed all the repairs to address the damp and mould evidencing poor follow up and record keeping.
21. The extended delays were particularly unreasonable given the landlord’s knowledge of the daughter’s vulnerability. While the landlord completed some work such as the mould treatment, it failed to follow up to ensure that all the identified work was completed within a reasonable timeframe. We recognise that the resident cancelled the 15 August 2023 survey which would have given the landlord the opportunity to review the scope of works required. However, the landlord needed to consider surveying the property at an earlier point given it recognised the urgency of the work due to the vulnerability in the household.
22. Given the above failings, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
23. We have considered the remedies offered by the landlord in its final complaint response. We have not seen that the landlord followed up on its offer to replace the bedroom carpets. We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace the bedroom carpets, if it has not already. The landlord considered and rejected the resident’s report of a damaged sofa saying that the resident had not reported this earlier. However, given that the landlord considered this in its final complaint response, it could have given the resident details of how she could make a claim on its insurance policy. We have recommended that the landlord provides this information to the resident.
24. The landlord offered £752 but did not provide a clear breakdown of its offer. In considering whether the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable, we have looked at the landlord’s compensation policy. This allows a 10% rent reduction for the loss of use of a room; in this case this was a bedroom. This excludes the time allowed to complete remedial works. Based upon the resident’s rent of £89.76 per week, this would amount to £431.04 (48 weeks from 28 April 2023 to the final complaint response of 28 March 2024 at £8.98 per week).
25. We have therefore broken down the compensation that the landlord offered as follows:

• a 10% rent reduction – £431.04
• belongings – £100 (based upon £50 each as per the landlord’s compensation policy)
• £120.96 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble
• we have also allocated £100 towards the complaint handling failings, assessed separately below

26. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation of £642 offered for this element of the complaint does not fully reflect the failings identified such as the delays, poor communication, and record keeping. It also does not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £250 for the further delays in completing the works and an additional £150 in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This results in a total compensation order for this complaint issue of £1,052 (inclusive of the £642 previously offered).

27. The resident made her complaint on 29 July 2023. The landlord’s internal email of 31 July 2023 stated it had sent this to its complaints team. Therefore, the landlord should have logged and acknowledged the complaint. However, it failed to do so which was inappropriate. This led to the resident chasing up the landlord 4 times between 31 July 2023 to 8 January 2024 for it to respond to her complaint which was unreasonable.
28. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires a landlord to log and acknowledge a complaint at both stages within 5 working days. It should issue a response at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It should respond within 20 working days from an acknowledgement at stage 2. We have seen no record that an acknowledgement was sent to the resident which was not appropriate.
29. The landlord’s undated stage 1 complaint response was sent sometime between 9 January 2024 – 15 February 2024, around 6 months after the resident made the complaint. The exact date is unknown as it is not mentioned in the landlord’s internal records. This delay was unreasonable and not line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
30. The resident requested that the landlord escalated her complaint on 15 February 2024. Again, we have seen no record that the landlord issued an acknowledgement. Its final complaint response was sent on 28 March 2024. This was sent 30 working days after the resident’s escalation request was made. This was also not in line with the Code which was inappropriate.
31. The landlord’s final complaint response also contained incorrect information. It said the resident’s initial report of damp and mould was on 31 March 2023 when its records show this was on 23 March 2023. It also said that the resident reported that the damp and mould had recurred on 12 July 2023. The landlord’s records note this as 10 July 2023.
32. Despite identifying failings, the landlord did not issue an appropriate apology. It was also unclear how it had calculated the £752 compensation offer. It needed to provide a breakdown of this to ensure transparency.
33. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlords handling of the associated complaint. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay £200 (inclusive of the £100 from the landlord’s compensation offer that we have allocated to complaint handling) in compensation to reflect the delays in the landlord logging and acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This also recognises the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Learning

34. The landlord said in its final complaint response of 28 March 2024 that it would be completing some further complaint handling training to managers who investigate and respond to stage 1 complaints. This is appropriate so that the landlord can learn from the complaint handling failings. However, it needed to consider learning from how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs. We have therefore ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review to identify further learning. This will help to prevent similar failings from happening in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. There was evidence of poor records management that may have contributed to the poor management of the repairs required to remedy the damp and mould, as well as the poor complaint handling. The landlord’s email to the resident on 22 November 2023 said it did not hold records for the period 1 April 2023 to 25 April 2023 which was inappropriate. We have therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its records management, if it has not done so already, in line with our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025). This will help the landlord to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

36. The landlord’s records evidence poor internal and external communication. The landlord’s communication with the resident was more reactive rather than proactive. This was not consistent with its damp and mould policy, as above. There was also miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor who the resident advised turned up 3 times without a ladder. This may not have been entirely the landlord’s fault as the works order stipulated that a ladder was needed.